Sh. Nitish Kumar Nagar vs JCIT (OSD)

All these appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-31 for the A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2020-21 arising out of assessment orders passed u/s.153A of the Act.

In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions/ disallowances made by the AO by dismissing the appeals of the assessee, on various legal grounds as the Assessment order is bad in law and also grounds on merits of the additions/ disallowance made.

Ld.CIT(DR) sought adjournment in all these appeals. We observed from the record that some of the appeals of the assessee were listed for hearing on 06.10.2025 and since bench did not function on that day and the appeals were adjourned to 02.12.2025. Meanwhile the assessee moved an application for consolidation of appeals fixed in various benches and considering the request of the assessee, on 21.11.2025 all the appeals were consolidated and listed for hearing on 13.01.2026 in “B” Bench. On 13.01.2026 the Ld. CIT(DR) sought an adjournment on the ground that special counsel is required to be appointed in these appeals as the assessee has raised additional grounds. Accepting the request of the assessee the Tribunal had granted adjournment and listed all these appeals for hearing on 07.04.2026 by giving opportunity to the revenue to ensure appointment of special counsel by the next date of hearing. It was made clear on that day that no further opportunity will be allowed for the same purpose. When the appeals came up for hearing on 07.04.226 similar request was made by the Ld. CIT(DR). Though it was made clear on 13.01.2016 that no further opportunity will be given, taking lenient view the appeals were adjourned to 23.04.2026 giving one last opportunity to the Revenue accepting the request. However, again when the appeals were called for hearing on 23.04.2026 similar request was made by the Ld. CIT(DR) who represented virtually.

On the other hand the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that in all these appeals the grounds taken by the assessee on merits where the AO made various additions/ disallowances, were not disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) disposed off only two legal grounds raised by the assessee i.e. in respect of the ground that no addition can be made in the absence of any incriminating materials and the approval obtained u/s.153D of the Act is bad in law. Ld. Counsel submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee on merits i.e. additions made in the assessments, no finding was rendered by the Ld. CIT(A) and the grounds on merits were not disposed off.

In view of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we have perused the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and also the grounds raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). On perusal of Form-35 and the grounds raised by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), we observed that the assessee in all these appeals raised several grounds of appeals that are technical as well as grounds on merits of additions/ disallowances made by the AO. However, on careful perusal of the Ld. CIT(A) order we observed that even though the Ld. CIT(A) extracted the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and also written submissions of the assessee in his order, however, while disposing of the appeals the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicated only two technical grounds and sustained the additions holding that the additions were made based on seized materials and the approval obtained by the AO u/s.153D is a valid approval.

It is observed that the appeals of the assessee were mainly disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A) observing that, inspite of several opportunities the assessee did not file submissions, did not choose to comply with the notices and therefore, decided the appeals exparte referring to the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. Bhattacharjee and another (118 ITR 481). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the main plank of arguments of the assessee is that additions were made de-horse the seized material and no addition can be made, but this ground of appeal was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) holding that AO made additions based on seized materials without examining the contentions of the Assessee with reference to additions made nor based on any remand / factual report from AO. One other ground which was disposed off by the Ld.CIT(A) is the challenge to the validity of approval granted u/s.153D of the Act. None of the grounds of the assessee which were raised against merits of additions/ disallowances made while completing the assessment u/s.153A of the Act, were dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) is totally silent on the merits of additions/ disallowances made by the AO.

On careful perusal of the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) which were extracted in the order, we further observed that even though the main plank of the arguments of the assessee is that the additions were made de-horse the seized materials, on without prejudice and alternatively the assessee contended that additions are not sustainable on merits for the reason explained therein. However, the alternate contentions of the assessee on merits were never disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A). The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is very cryptic on merits even assuming that there is a finding by the Ld. CIT(A).

In the above circumstances, this bench is of the view that all these appeals have to be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the grounds raised by the assessee on merits since no finding was rendered by the Ld. CIT(A) on the additions/ disallowances made by the AO. In these circumstances this bench is of the view that accepting the request of the Revenue for adjournment of appeals for appointing Special Counsel to represent the revenue in these appeals would serve no purpose for the reason that no finding is rendered on merits by the Ld. CIT(A), rather the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is totally silent on the merits of additions/ disallowances made by AO while completing the assessment and all these appeals have to go back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in all these appeals and restore all these appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) who shall decide all the grounds raised by the assessee i.e., technical as well as grounds on merits in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Coming to the above appeals it is noticed that all these appeals were filed by the assessee in sustaining the penalties levied u/s.271A, 271B and 221 of the Act. Since the Ld. CIT(A) disposed off all these appeals without considering the submissions of the assessee and also since outcome of the appeals in quantum proceedings has bearing on these appeals, all these penalty appeals are also restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing opportunity to the assessee. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.