AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM:
These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] both dated 14.08.2025 arising out of the respective assessment orders dated 04.05.2022 and 08.03.2021 passed under section 153A and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) respectively by the DC/ACIT Cent Circle Gurugram-2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 and 2018-19. Since common issues are involved in these two appeals, the same is being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenient and brevity.
The grounds of appeal are as under (ITA No.- 7077/Del/2025)
“ 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s 250 passed by the Hon’ble CIT(A) is bad in law and has been passed without satisfying the legal and procedural requirements prescribed under the Act.
2.. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
3.The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by upholding penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act.
4.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend OR withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.
5.That the Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and against the principle of natural justice by passing the Non-Speaking Order u/s 250 of the Act.
6.That the Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and against the principle of natural justice by passing the Ex-Parte Order u/s 250 E of the Act without providing proper opportunity of being heard.
7.That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the assessment at an income of Rs. 41,97,973/- as against the returned income of Rs. 5,97,973/- without proper appreciation of facts and submissions placed on record.
8.That the addition of Rs. 36,00,000/- sustained by upholding 8 alleged commission income under section 69A 115BBE of the Act.
9.The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by sustaining the addition beyond the seized material in the case of a completed assessment, as held in 380 ITR 573 (Delhi).
10 The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by sustaining the addition without taking proper cognizance of the plausible explanation and evidence submitted by the appellant during assessment proceedings.”
(ITA No.- 7078/Del/2025)
“ 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s 250 passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is bad in law and has been passed without satisfying the legal and procedural requirements prescribed under the Act.
2.That the Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and against the principle of natural justice by passing the Non-Speaking Order u/s 250 of the Act.
3.That the Hon’ble CIT (A) has erred in law and against the principle of natural justice by passing the Ex-Parte Order u/s 250 of the Act without providing proper opportunity of being heard.
4.That the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the assessment at an income of Rs.5,68,27,010/-as against the returned income of Rs.7,23,073/-without proper appreciation of facts and submissions placed on record.
5.That the addition of Rs. 5,63,43,000/- sustained by upholding unexplained money under section 69A 115BBE of the Act.
6.The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by sustaining the addition beyond the seized material in the case of a completed assessment, as held in 380 ITR 573 (Delhi).
7.The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by sustaining the addition without taking proper cognizance of the plausible explanation and evidence submitted by the appellant during assessment proceedings.
8.The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by not 8 providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
9.The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by initiating penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act.
10.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend OR withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.”
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that both the appeals of the assessee were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex parte. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee could not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) as the notices were not received and requested that the matter may be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessee may be allowed one more opportunity to submit his case before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. CIT(DR) supported the orders of the authorities below but did not seriously object to the plea of the assessee for restoring the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A).
Having heard both the parties, we deem it appropriate to set aside the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The assessee is directed to respond to notice(s) issued by the Ld. CIT(A), without fail.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.