AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year: 2012-13.
Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as under:
“1.The impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts and is liable to be quashed.
2.The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 /148, which are without jurisdiction, based on borrowed satisfaction from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind, lacking valid "reason to believe," and vitiated by mechanical approval under section 151, and hence liable to be quashed.
3.The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition in violation of principles of natural justice by relying on material and statements collected behind the back of the appellant without providing opportunity of cross-examination, without furnishing copies of such material, and without granting adequate and effective opportunity of being heard.
4.The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition by incorrectly applying the provisions of the Act, relying solely on information from the Investigation Wing without independent enquiry or corroborative evidence, and proceeding on suspicion and surmises instead of legally admissible evidence.
5.The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition by ignoring the explanations and material placed on record by the appellant, and in recording findings which are perverse, unsupported by evidence, and based on conjectures and assumptions without establishing actual payment of alleged donation/capitation fees.
6.The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.22,69,500/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained payment, without any cogent evidence establishing such payment, merely on the basis of third-party statements and investigation reports, and without satisfying the essential conditions for invoking the provisions of section 68/69 of the Act.
7.The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing a nonspeaking and cryptic order without properly adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant, and in failing to pass a reasoned and speaking order as mandated under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; further, the dismissal/ confirmation of additions on account of alleged non-prosecution is unjustified, arbitrary, and contrary to settled legal principles.
8.The learned CIT(A) erred m law and on facts in upholding/allowing initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C, which are unjustified, excessive, and consequential in nature and liable to be deleted or suitably reduced.”
At the very outset, the ld. counsel of the assessee, during proceedings before us submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
4 Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and we are of this considered view that despite the fact that the ld. CIT(A) issued a number of notices giving opportunities to the assessee of being heard but no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. Despite this, we are of this view, that keeping in view, the element of natural justice in mind. The assessee deserves one more opportunity of being heard as the ld. CIT(A) has not given any finding on merit on the basis of material available on record. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to give adequate opportunities to the assessee as required under law. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices of the ld. CIT(A) and file all the relevant details and documents in time.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.