AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi dated 13.01.2026 under section 250 of the Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) arising from the assessment order dated 23.03.2025 by the DCIT, Central Circle-26, New Delhi under section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2023-24.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is without jurisdiction, bad in law, contrary to facts and legal principles, and liable to be quashed.
2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,65,09,676/- on account of alleged unexplained expenditure in respect of a property which is not owned by the appellant. Therefore, the same is liable to be deleted.
3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in presuming the appellant to be the owner of the property in question and in sustaining additions relating to construction activities with which the appellant has no concern whatsoever, without any cogent material or legally sustainable basis.
4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the impugned additions despite the fact that the appellant is neither the author nor the owner of the alleged Excel sheet relied upon by the Assessing Officer, and in the absence of any material establishing its ownership, authenticity, or evidentiary value qua the appellant.
5.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the additions despite the admitted inconsistency that the Excel sheet relied upon pertains to a different property than the one mentioned in the statement of the appellant and in the absence of any nexus between the two, the addition is wholly unsustainable.
6.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the impugned assessment order, which was completed in undue haste as the time given to respond to Show Cause Notice was less than 7 days in complete ignorance of guidelines issued by the CBDT which violates the principles of natural justice. Thereby vitiating the assessment proceedings.
7.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned assessment order and the additions sustained therein are arbitrary, contrary to the facts on record, violative of the principles of natural justice, and unsustainable in law.
8.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of jewellery and filed his return of income for A.Y. 2023-24 on 28.07.2023 declaring income of Rs.2,66,82,080/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on Rama Krishna Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. and others on 10.05.2024 and pursuant to that case was selected for complete scrutiny. Further, notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 27.06.2024 and thereon show-cause notice dated 12.03.2025 for examining the issue of unexplained cash expenditure on A-3/19, DLF-1 (‘the said property’). Thereafter, the Ld. AO passed the impugned assessment order dated 23.03.2025 u/s 143(3) making addition of Rs.2,65,09,676/- as unexplained cash expenditure that has been allegedly utilized for construction.
At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the assessee could not comply with the notices by the CIT(A) which resulted in the CIT(A) passing an ex parte order. The learned AR prayed for remanding the case to the file of the CIT(A).
Per contra, learned DR did not raise any objection.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order on account of non-representation from the side of the assessee. In such facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view, in the interest of natural justice, that the issue be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunities to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit requisite documents as and when required by the CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.