AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
The appeal o f the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.09.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here inafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein appe al has been dismissed on the ground that despite several opportunities, the assessee has only sought adjournment and not filed any written submission/document, against assessment order dated 27.03.2024.
Brief facts as culled out from the orders of the authorities below are that the assessee filed its revised re turn of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 31.10.2022 declaring to tal income of Rs.17 ,91,20,490/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.03.2024 making an addition of Rs.94,57,65,069/- on account of alleged difference between receipts disclosed in the return of income and Form 26AS and an addition/disallowance of Rs.35 ,62,616/- in respect of other expenses.
Aggrieve d by the Assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal, observing that despite several opportunities, the assessee had neither filed any written submissions nor furnished any supporting do cuments in support of the grounds raised in appeal.
Aggrieve d by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1.That the L d CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming addition o f Rs 94,5 7,65,069/- under business inco me due to difference between busine ss receipts in ITR and Form 26AS, by ignoring submissio n that Past ye ar i nco me is reflecting in 26AS in the rele vant Assessment Year and by ignoring the fact that data reflecting in 26AS is including of GST portio n with Services.
2.That the Ld CIT(A ), NFAC, has e rre d in confirming addition of Rs 35,62,616/-o n adho c basis @ 12.5% of other e xpenses under sectio n 37 of the I ncome Tax, conside ring as bogus expenses.
3.That the L d CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming addition o f Rs 35,62,616/-on basis o f reliance on judgment of Ho nor able Gujar at High Court, in case of CIT vs Simit P. Sheth, (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj ar at), by igno ring the facts that facts in our case and facts in give n citation are differe nt.
4.That the L d CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming addition by reco rding incorrect facts and findings and without cross ver ification o f the entire material used against the appel lant.
5.That on the facts and circumstances, the Ld CIT(A), NF AC has erred in confirming additio n of Rs.94,57,65,069/- witho ut mentioning Sections, Sub sections, and pro visions o f law, under which sect ion or subsection addition has done .
6.That the appellant craves the leave to add, modi fy, amend or de lete any of the gro unds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other .”
We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the issues involved are esse ntially factual in nature and require verification of the boo ks of account, Form 26AS, invoices, details of receipts and other supporting documents. The ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) issued notices o n various dates and the assessee sought adjournment in response to the notices dated 04.04.2025 and 06.05.2025, whereas no response was made to the notice dated 07.08.2025. T he Ld. CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal in the absence of any written submission or supporting documents from the assessee. It is therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice, one more effective opportunity of hearing may be granted to the assessee and the matter may be r estored to the file o f the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on me rits.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have considered the r ival submissions and examined the material o n record. We have noticed the ld. CIT(A) in para 8.3 o f the impugned order, has observed as under :
“8.3During the course o f appellate procee dings, as is discussed above, neither the appellant nor his AR filed any written submission, despi te getting se veral opportunities . It is pe rtinent to mention here that notices has been issued to the appellant from more than past 6 months, but the appellant has only sought adjournment and not bothe red to file submission & relevant documents in respect o f the grounds of appeal raised in this appeal. The conduct of the appellant indicates lack of interest in prose cuting this appe al. In this regard, reliance is placed on Gujarat High Co urt Judgment in c ase of Fairdeal F ilaments Ltd vs. C.I.T. 302 ITR 173. Therefore , it is no t requi red to give any fur ther o pportunity to the assessee .”
It is evident from the extract of the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds raise d by the assessee on merits, primarily o n the ground that the assessee had not filed written submissions and supporting documents despite oppor tunities having been affor ded. We find that the issues raised by the assessee require examination o n merits after co nsidering the rele vant facts and supporting documentar y evidence. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after affor ding reasonable and effective oppor tunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the ld. CIT(A) within the perio d of 60 days of this order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe d for statistical pur poses.