AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These two appeals pertained to the same assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15. Appeal No.1050/Del/2026 arises from order dated 04.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi. ITA No.1051/Del/2026 arises from order dated 04.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In these cases, the Assessing Officer passed an ex parte order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for the both the years. The explanation furnished by the assessee for such non-compliance before the Ld. AO was that the company was struck off from the record of Registrar of Companies. In light of this the said Company was not functioning administratively and hence the notices sent by the Ld. AO could not be responded to.
Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed written submissions and certain new evidences which are seen to have been summarily dealt with and rejected on the ground that there were no supporting documents in the shape of audited financials, Income tax returns, or even bank statements of the lending parties made available in justification of a claim that the impugned transactions were genuine. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee on the basis of largely similar findings in the two impugned orders.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with detailed and argumentative grounds of appeal which challenge the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. AO and also challenge the additions on merit. There is also a prayer that there was denial of opportunity to the assessee. It is also seen that for AY 2014-15 there is an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963.
Before us, the Ld. AR argued that due to the cessation of operations of the assessee company no compliance could be made before the Ld. AO and it was pointed out that additional evidences filed before the Ld. CIT(A) were also not considered. The Ld. AR stated that for both the years under consideration the assessee has put together considerable documentation in support of his claim that the impugned transactions were genuine. It was the prayer that these matters may be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO so that the assessee is able to furnish evidences before the Ld. AO in support of his claim.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that in the absence of supporting documents as mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A), there was no way in which the genuineness of the impugned transactions could be verified.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR. We have also perused the documents before us, including the additional evidence proposed to be filed before us. We find that the assessee was non-compliant before the Ld. AO and even before the Ld. CIT(A) he has made partial compliance at best. We are considerably persuaded by the Ld. AR’s averments that the assessee is now in a position to furnish necessary documents in justification of his claim that the impugned transactions are genuine. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set aside both the impugned orders and remand these cases back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The ld. AO would consider all relevant documents which would be invariably filed by the assessee and thereafter pass a reasoned order in both cases.
In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.