AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal is directed against the order dated 24.09.2025 of Lear ned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Facele ss Appeal Centre , Delhi [hereinafter referr ed to as the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] wherein the additio n of the appellant u/s 69C of Rs.56,35,000/- vide Assessment Order dated 24.12.20 24 was co nfirmed.
Facts in brief ar e that the case of the appellant was re-opened u/s 148 of the Act on the specific informatio n that the assessee has carried out non-genuine transactions worth Rs.44,25,000/- and Rs.12,10,000 /- with the concerns/ entities controlled and managed by Shri Gurdeep Singh during the relevant financial year. The assessment proceedings were impacted with the ill health of managing partne r Shri Rajeev Dawar, w ho remained ill for most of the time. The ld. AO has rejected the books of acco unts and the cash book on the allegation o f non-genuine purchases. Despite the GST authorities having accepted the purchases in the G ST re turn.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) w hich was dismissed the same ex-parte on the ground that the appellant has failed to respond to the various notices sent as find me ntio ned in parag raph 5 of the impugned order.
Aggrieved by the impugned appellate ex-parte order, the assesse is in ap peal before us and has raised the fo llowing grounds of appeal:
“1 . That the order of the l earned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) i n upholdi ng t he validity of orders u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B passe d by Incom e Tax Officer is alt ogether a rbitrar y, illegal and uncalled for.
2.That the or der of the learned Commissione r of i nc ome Tax i n gi vi ng hi s fi ndi ngs t hat ground of appeal N o.1 with regard t o r eopeni ng of assessment proceedi ngs u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 i s general in nature is complet ely against the facts and r ecords and is alto gether arbitra ry, ille gal and uncall ed for.
3.That i n the facts and circums tances of the cas e of t he appellant the findings of the CIT(Appeals) t hat t he conclusi ons of GST A udi t Team o f (Cent re) wi th re gard to purc has es has no co nce rn wit h corr ect ness of p urchases is al toge ther illegal and uncalled for as t he i nvoic es and e-way bills for pur chas es wer e wit h his office.
4.That i n the facts and circums tances of the cas e of t he appellant the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal s) has ignored the GS T A udi t R epor t, Invoice & E-way bill s case Law filed al ongwith documents of appeal which is compl et el y, ar bitrary , illegal and uncalled f or.
5.That i n the facts and circums tances of the cas e of t he appellant t he or der of the Co mmissioner of inco me Tax (Appeals) i n c onfirmi ng additi on o f R s.5635000/-with regard to entire purc hases from S h. Vinod Prop. M/s. B.M. Ent erprises (PANo.A WGPV5862K) (Rs .4425000/-Rajesh K umar PANO.DHRPK2476R) Rs.12,10,000) is compl et el y arbitr ary, illegal and unc alled for.”
We have heard the learned AR and the learned DR. Lear ned AR at the very outset submitted that Assessment Order was also passed without effective representation of the assessee due to illness of the managing partner . It is further argued that the impugned order has been passed without effective opportunity of hearing as the notices allegedly sent were no t received or brought to the know ledge of the assessee. Hence, the principle of natural justice has not been followed by the learned low er author ity. It is, therefore, submitted that assessee be given one more opportunity to present its case before the learne d CIT( A) and the matter may be restored back to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. Learned DR, on the other hand, has fairly submitted while relying upon the ld. CIT(A) order left it to the discretio n of the cour t to consider the submissions of the assesse/appellant.
We have co nsidered the rival submission and examined the record, Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under:
“250(2 ) The fol lo wing shall have the right to be heard at the heari ng o f the appeal-
(a)the appellant, either i n person or by an authori zed repres entative;”
Thus, the hear ing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is no t a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natur al justice by the quasi-judicial authority.
In view of the ab ove facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed w ithout effective hearing and principle of natural justice has no t b een followed For these reaso ns, the impug ned order is not maintainable and according ly set aside. T he end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh by affording an effective o pportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) w ithin the period of 60 days of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.