AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order all dated 13.11.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as 'ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order 18.03.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act and penalty order dated 14.09.2023 passed u/s 271AAC(1) and dated 22.09.2023 passed u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 in ITA No.282/Del/2026:-
1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A)-NFAC is contrary to facts and bad in law.
2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC, has erred in rejecting the appeal u/s 249(2) disregarding the date of service of assessment order whereas the appeal was filed within thirty days of service of such order. The CIT(A) has overlooked the date of service of order in view of not admitting delay in filing sacrosanct Form 35 which solely formed the basis of deciding the appeal.
3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O has erred in giving less than seven days to respond to the notice issued under clause(b) of section 148A. In the present case, notice was issued on 17/03/2022 to file reply on OR before 22/03/2022 barely giving five days and is in violation of principles of natural justice.
4.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O has erred in passing defective order under clause(d) of section 148A as it states notice was issued on 17/03/2022 and clear eight days were given to the assessee is not sustainable in law.
5.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O, has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 12,94,47,066 as unexplained-money, under Section 69A and computing tax liability under section 115BBE. The deeming part of section 69A comes into play if such money is not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee, in the given case, the assesse is registered under Delhi VAT-2004 and GST and has maintained complete books of account recording all cash deposits and bank credits. The assesse has duly reported such deposits as Trading Receipts under DVAT and GST returns relevant to the AY 2018-19.
6.That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has further erred in confirming addition of Rs. 51,23,322 being 8 percent of other credit entries Rs. 6,40,41,534 as business receipts (Section 28). In view of the nature of items the assesse was dealing in and prevailing industry margin, the actual profit earned was much lower and this can be substantiated from the books of the assesse.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 in ITA No.283/Del/2026:-
1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A)-NFAC is contrary to facts and bad in law.
2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC, has erred in rejecting the appeal u/s 249(2) disregarding the date of service of penalty order whereas the appeal was filed within thirty days of service of such order. The CIT(A) has overlooked the date of service of notice in view of not admitting delay in filing sacrosanct Form 35 which solely formed the basis of deciding the appeal.
3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O, has erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 99,99,785 on addition of Rs. 12,94,47,066 made under section 69A and applying section 115BBE thereto, disregarding the fact the assesse is registered under Delhi VAT-2004 and GST and has maintained complete books of account recording all cash deposits and bank credits. The assesse has duly reported such deposits as Trading Receipts under DVAT and GST returns relevant to the AY 2018-19.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 in ITA No.284/Del/2026:-
1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by CIT(A)-NFAC is contrary to facts and bad in law.
2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-NFAC, has erred in rejecting the appeal u/s 249(2) disregarding the date of service of penalty order whereas the appeal was filed within thirty days of service of such order. The CIT(A) has overlooked the date of service of notice in view of not admitting delay in filing sacrosanct Form 35 which solely formed the basis of deciding the appeal.
3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O has issued a notice u/s 274 read with section 270A in a routine manner and failed to make a specific ground OR limb of section 270A under which under-reported income which is in consequence of misreporting thereof was invoked.
4.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O, has erred in confirming penalty of Rs.31,96,956 on addition of Rs. 12,94,47,066 under misrepresentation OR suppression of facts without any cogent expression.
All the three appeals of the assessee are regarding quantum addition as well as penalty imposition for AY 2018-19, for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order.
ITA No.282/Del/2026
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed its appeal in limine without condoning the delay of about 633 days in filing of appeal before him. The ld. Counsel submitted that both the lower authorities have passed ex-parte orders. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is a lady whose financial affairs were attended by her husband and that on account of unfortunate demise of the husband, the assessee being unaware could not make timely compliance to the statutory notices issued by the lower authorities. It was submitted that the assessee is now fully ready to co-operate with the Department and that one last opportunity be given to defend its case.
The ld. DR did not raise any serious objections to the impugned proposal.
Heard rival parties. Perused material available on record.
There is no denying that the assessee has committed a delay of 633 days before the ld. First Appellate Authority, however, we have also noted and considered the unfortunate circumstances of husband’s demise which contributed to the delay. We are conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA Nos.283-284/Del/2026
The above-mentioned appeals of the assessee are in respect of imposition of penalty u/s 271AAC and Section 270A. Both the above penalties are with reference to the quantum addition challenged in ITA No.282/Del/2026. Since, we have set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remitted the assessment proceedings to ld. AO, the impugned penalty orders have become infructuous. We, therefore, set-aside the penalty orders of the lower authorities and remit the issue to the ld. AO for taking action in accordance with law. Both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05th June, 2026.