AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the orders dated 08.07.2021passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2020-21. The assessment is framed by the Assessing Officer [for shot, AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144(B) of the Act.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“ 1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has grossly erred both in law and on facts in determining aggregate annual receipts at Rs. 1,10,67,590/--as against declared income of NIL. In this regard it is submitted that:
a)That, The appellant has e-filed its return of income for assessment year 2020-21 on 24.12.2020 declaring total income at 'Nil' after claiming exemption under section 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
b)That, in the ITR filed by the appellant has claimed exemption under section 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act amounting to Rs. 98,48,012/-which includes fess received of Rs. 86,48,012/- and Rs. 12,00,000/-received as a grant from the Government.
c)That, the appellant had submitted incorrect figure in submission before the NFAC, of the fees received at Rs. 98,67,590/- instead of actual fees received was Rs. 86,48,012/- as also shown by the appellant in the ITR filed by him. The incorrect figure was taken due to the following reason: For example, Total fees of Mr. A (the student) was due in the month of April 2025 shown in fees receipt issued is 50,000/- and the student paid Rs. 5000/- as fees and rest of the amount is still due. But in this case, the appellant had taken Rs. 50,000/- as fees received in the list maintained as well as submitted in his reply. Hence, the appellant has shown excess amount of fees received instead of the actual fees received and also the same figure considered as fees by the Assessing Officer which is totally incorrect and unjustified. The figure of actual fees received could be verified from the receipts of fees received. Further, the appellant also showed the figure of actual fees received in the audited balance as well as the ITR filed by him. So, may please considered the amount of actual fees received by the appellant in this case and set aside the Assessment order as well as the order passed by NFAC (Appeals).
d)That, the month-wise list of actual fees at Rs. 86,48,012/-received by the appellant is attached as Annexure-1. So may please consider the actual fees received and set aside the Assessment order as well as the Order passed by the NFAC and remand back the case to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of fees received by the appellant.
2.That, the appellant received Rs. 12,00,000/- against grant received from the Government which is actually not a part of receipt/income of the appellant. The grant was received to invest the said amount in fixed assets and accordingly the grant was invested by the appellant to increase the fixed assets and so it is not a part of income. The appellant invested Rs. 9,90,0000/- to establish ATAL Lab up to 31.03.2020. But the Assessing Officer wrongly considered the amount of grant under taxable income of the appellant which is totally incorrect and illegal.
3.That the NFAC on facts and in law erred in not deleting the interest levied by the Assessment Unit under the IT Act. In this case whole of the addition in income is made by The AO is totally illegal and only on incorrect figures of the fees received and so the interest charged by The AO is also totally illegal, bad in law and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
4.The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
None attended and therefore, we decided to hear the case ex-parte with the assistance of Ld. DR. We have heard the ld DR at length and have perused the materials on record.
At the outset, the Ld. DR pointed out that this was an ex parte assessment and the CIT(A)/NFAC had decided the appeal ex parte as well.
We have heard the submission of the ld DR and we find that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal in-limne ex-parte without following the law provided u/s 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, to meet the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be granted another opportunity to represent its case. We, therefore, direct the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to afford three reasonable and effective opportunities to the assessee to represent his case and adjudicate on the issues afresh. The assessee is also directed to avail the opportunities and present its documents/evidence as required by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with the understanding that, failure to do so may result in adverse view.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.