AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085078643(1), dated 22.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Case called twice, none appears at the assessee's behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:
1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in 1 law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 144 r.w.s254 and 144B is bad in law.
2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the reopening the case under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without proper justification, and therefore the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the mandatory provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Income-tax 3 Act, 1961, as applicable on the relevant date, were not duly complied with, rendering the entire assessment proceedings void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the approval granted under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act by an authority not competent/jurisdictionally empowered under the Act is illegal, void ab initio and contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, and therefore the reassessment proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed.
5.That on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the impugned addition which has been made merely on the basis of 5 conjectures, presumptions, and surmises, without bringing any cogent material OR evidence on record to establish that the impugned amount represents undisclosed income of the Assessee.
6.That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,18,034/- in respect of purchase of property remained unexplained under section 69C of the Act.
7.That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,13,000/- in respect of credits in bank accounts has unexplained and added to the total income assessee.
8.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,76,530/- on purely estimated basis being 5 percent of alleged share transactions of Rs. 35,30,546/-.
9.That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
10.That the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levying interest under section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
11.That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.
12.That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Suffice to say, it transpires during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the revenue side that this is the second round of proceedings before the Tribunal. And that the assessee all along has not pleaded and proved the source of the impugned deposits/credits; as the case may be, in either of the twin assessments and lower appellate proceedings as well as before the Tribunal. This is further coupled with the fact that all what the learned CIT(A) has done is to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer as per section 251(1)(a) read with the proviso thereto; inserted in the Act vide Finance Act, 2024 w.e.f. 01.10.2024. This Tribunal does not see any merit in the assessee's instant appeal which is hereby dismissed in very terms.
This assessee appeal is dismissed.