AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
These two appeals by the assessee are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi-31, dated 17.09.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-14, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18, respectively.
Since the above captioned appeals were heard together and facts in issues are identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.7890/Del/2025 are as under :
“1.That the ld CIT (A) has grossly erred both in law as well as on facts in ex parte dismissing of the appeal of the assessee against an order of assessment dated 31.12.2019 passed by the ld ACIT, Central Circle – 14, Delhi u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act determining the income of the assessee at Rs.17,22,800/- as against returned income of Rs.10,70,800/-
2.That the learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the order of assessment passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer without affording a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
3.That the leaned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee without disposing of the grounds raised in the memo of appeal which is in complete disregard of the statutory provisions contained under section 250(6) of the Act.
4.That the leaned CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in passing a non-speaking order in respect of the grounds raised in the memo of appeal which is in violation of the statutory obligation cast on him under section 250(6) of the Act to state the reasons for his decision on each such points, which arose for determination in assessee's appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
5.That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the addition made by the learned AO of Rs. 16,52,000/- u/s 69 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6.That the learned CIT{A) has erred in ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the addition made by the learned AO of Rs. 90,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
7.That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the addition made by the learned AO of Rs. 36,00,000/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
8.That the learned CIT(A) has erred in ex-parte dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming the addition made by the learned AO of Rs. 44,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
9.The assessment orders passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act is void-ab -initio as the said assessment order has been passed based on the combined/consolidated approval issued u/s 153D of the Act by the Learned Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi, dated 30.12.2019, in the mechanical manner, therefore, the impugned assessment orders and the orders of the Commissioner are liable to be quashed.
10.That the Appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all the grounds of appeal urged above.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.10,70,800/-. Thereafter, assessment has been completed u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) on 31.12.2019 at income of Rs.1,17,22,800/- after making following additions:
Rs.16,52,000/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Rs.90,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained income u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Rs.36,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Rs.44,00,000/-on account of alleged unexplained expenditure u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the CIT(A), which the CIT(A) dismissed ex-parte on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is before us.
At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order and prayed for setting aside the order to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Per contra, learned DR did not raise any serious objection and relied upon the order of authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) had given opportunities to the assessee and in absence of any response from the assessee, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without determining the issues as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) should have given reasonable opportunities to the assessee to represent the case and accordingly we consider it fit to set aside the issues involved in the case to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee and assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit documents/evidence as required by the CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is decided in aforesaid terms.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No. 7891/DEL/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 :
The facts in the instant case are identical to the facts of the case decided above. The decision therefore in ITA No.7890/Del/2026 will apply mutatis mutandis to the facts of the instant case.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.7890 & 7891/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 14.05.2026.