AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 16.07.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 28.12.2022 of the Learned Assessing Officer / DCIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17.
Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the Ashish begwani group of cases. Shri Ashish Begwani was found to be involved in facilitation of accommodation entry along with the Kolkata based entry providers Sh. Gopal Kumar Aggarwal and his son Sh. Vikas Kumar Aggarwal. The incriminating material i.e. sheets containing list of beneficiaries and their transactions of accommodation entries taken from shell companies which were facilitated by Sh. Ashish Begwani (facilitator of accommodation entry) and managed by Kolkata based entry provider Sh. Gopal Kumar Aggarwal and his son Vikar Kumar Agggarwal, trqansactions pertaining to various other assesses were also found. The assessee was found to be a beneficiary of the accommodation entries taken from entities controlled by sh. Ashish Begwani and others. The assessee furnished original return of income u/s 139 of the act on 26.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 6,57,510/- which was processed u/s 143(1) on 08.11.2017. The jurisdiction of the case was transferred to the AO by centralization order u/s 127 of the act by PCIT-7, Chandigarh dated 21.04.2022. After perusing satisfaction note and incriminating documents received from the AO of searched person, satisfaction note was recorded by AO of the Assessee. Notice u/s 153C of the act dated 25.02.2022 was issued. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and questionnaire was issued on 14.11.2022, the assessee made submissions dated 22.11.2022. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.11.2022 was issued, assessee made submissions. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 28.12.2022 made addition of Rs. 1 crore u/s 68 of the act on account of unexplained credits and addition of Rs. 3 lacs u/s 69C of the act on account of unexplained expenditure.
Against the assessment order dated 28.12.2022, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2025.
Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:
“1.That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of ₹1,03,00,000/-made by the Ld. AO.
2.That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed without DIN as mandated by CBDT circular 19/2019. not press.
3.That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned appellate order without properly considering the submissions filed by the appellant.
4.That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Ld. AO, despite the fact that the satisfaction notes recorded by the AO of the assessee as well as the AO of the searched person are undated, general in nature, and do not specify any incriminating material belonging to the assessee which has a bearing on the income of the assessee for a particular assessment year.
5.That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Ld. AO, ignoring the specific contention of the appellant that the assessment was barred by limitation, as in the case of assessment under section 153C of the Act, the period of limitation is required to be reckoned from the date on which the seized material is handed over to the AO of the assessee and satisfaction is recorded, and not from the date of search.
6.That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Ld. AO without ensuring that the objections raised by the assessee were disposed of by way of a speaking order.
7.That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of the Ld. AO without affording the appellant an opportunity of cross-examination, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
8.That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order wherein the statement of the searched person has been misreported and wrongly relied upon.
9.That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition under section 68 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee had duly furnished all essential documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the lender. The loan was obtained through proper banking channels and was subsequently repaid through proper banking channels, and therefore, the provisions of section 68 of the Act were not applicable.
10.That, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in law and on facts in-sustaining the addition on the alleged ground of commission payment, despite the fact that the assessee had categorically submitted that no commission was paid for availing the loan.
11.That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that the ground No. 2 of the appeal is not pressed. Therefore, the ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed as not pressed.
Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of ld. AO in violation of principles of natural justice. The matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that despite several opportunities the assessee had not filed any submission before Ld. CIT(A).
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 16.07.2025 confirmed the assessment order dated 28.12.2022 of ld. AO for non-filing of submissions in support of grounds of appeal by the appellant/assessee. In view of above material facts in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 16.07.2025 of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh decision in accordance with law after affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.