AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 14.11.2025 arising from the assessment order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer, JCIT (OSD), Central Circle-27, New Delhi under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17.
The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :
“1.That having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned order u/s 153C & that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law & without complying with the mandatory conditions 153A & 153C as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.That having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,40,698/- u/s 69A of the I. T. Act, 1961 when outstanding brought forward loan, taken in earlier years was repaid during the year that too by recording incorrect facts & findings & without observing the principles of natural justice.
3.That in any case and in any view of the matter, the confirmation of addition by of Rs. 5,40,698/- u/s 69A of the 1. T. Act by ld. PCIT(A) is bad in law.
4.That having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT(A) has erred in law & on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.16,220/- u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 as unexplained expenditure when no expenditure was incurred and claimed during the year that too by recording incorrect facts & findings & without observing the principles of natural justice.
5.That in any case and in any view of the matter, the confirmation of addition by Ld. CIT(A) of Rs.16,220/- u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 as unexplained expenditure, is bad in law.
6.That having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, ld . PCIT(A) has erred in law & on facts of the case in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act.
7.That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed original return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 19.09.2016 declaring loss of (Rs.30,65,021/-) for the year under consideration. On the basis of Search and seizure under section 132 of the Act carried out on Alankit Group of cases on18.10.2019, assessments were framed u/s 153C of the Act.
At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the assessee could not comply with the notices by the CIT(A) which resulted in the CIT(A) passing an ex parte order. The learned AR prayed for remanding the case to the file of the CIT(A).
Per contra, learned DR did not raise any objection.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order on account of non-representation from the side of the assessee. In such facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view, in the interest of natural justice, that the issue be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide adequate opportunities to the assessee to present its case. The assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit requisite documents as and when required by the CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.