AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s order dated 25.09.2017 in case no.107/17-18 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
We notice at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the Assessing Officer had framed his section 144 assessment in the assessee’s case inter alia adding alleged cessation of liabilities under section 41(1) of Rs.4,73,57,324/- as unexplained cash credits of Rs.6,57,14,440/- and Rs.3,14,05,000/-; respectively, in his assessment order dated 31.03.2015 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, the Revenue vehemently argues that the assessee has all along been non-cooperative in not only filing its detailed evidence along with supportive explanation before the Assessing Officer but also in the CIT(A) as well as in the instant second appellate proceedings. The fact, however, remains that the learned Assessing Officer has nowhere even bothered to make it clear in his assessment findings as to whether there is actual cession of the impugned outstanding liability(ies) or not. The very factual position appears to have continued in the CIT(A)’s order as well although the assessee had filed its detailed written submissions in course thereof.
Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that the learned CIT(A) needs to look into the entire factual matrix once again in tune with section 250(6) of the Act to redecide the assessee’s lower appeal afresh preferably within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.