AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These two captioned appeals have been filed by the different assessee against the same order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 13.01.2026 arising from the separate assessment order dated 25.03.2024 passed by Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘the AO’) under section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) and assessment order dated 30.03.2024 passed by Assessing Officer DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi u/s 147 of the Act both for the Assessment Year 2020-21.
Since the above captioned appeals by different but related assessees, were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. We take up appeal in ITA No.3415/Del/2026 first and the decision of the same would apply mutatis mutandis to the facts in the ITA No.3416/Del/2026.
The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.3415/Del/2026 are as under :
1.“That the impugned Order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in the case of the Appellant for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as “A.Y.”) 2020-21 is erroneous and has been passed without proper appreciation of facts.
2.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order dated 25.03.2024 passed under section 147 of the Act in the case of the Appellant for the A.Y. 2020-21 violates the settled principles of natural justice, because the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle-5, New Delhi had made a huge addition of Rs.5,66,53,862/-, further confirmed by CIT(A), based on a show cause notice issued on 08.03.2024 at 7.13 PM requiring compliance by the Appellant by 10.03.2024 at 11.00 AM, thus giving the Appellant a time of mere one day, which is neither reasonable nor sufficient opportunity.
3.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,66,53,862/- in the impugned assessment order dated 25.03.2024, passed under section 147 of the Act in the case of the Appellant for the A.Y. 2020-21, as it is unilateral, arbitrary and erroneous and has been made without proper appreciation of facts and the nature of the transaction.
4.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete any of the above grounds.”
The following grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.3416/Del/2026 are as under :
1.“That the impugned Order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in the case of the Appellant for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as “A.Y.”) 2020-21 is erroneous and has been passed without proper appreciation of facts.
2.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order dated 29.03.2024 passed under section 147 of the Act in the case of the Appellant for the A.Y. 2020-21 violates the settled principles of natural justice, because the Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle-5, New Delhi had made a huge addition of Rs.13,68,98,812/-, further confirmed by CIT(A), thus giving the Appellant a time of mere one day, which is neither reasonable nor sufficient opportunity.
3.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,66,53,862/- on account of capital gains, because the addition has been made without appreciating the facts of the case.
4.That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,02,44,950/-under section 69A of the Act, because the addition has been made without making inquiry or verification to ascertain the facts.
5.That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete any of the above grounds.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a resident individual, has filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 declaring income of Rs.26,10,900/- on 10.04.2021. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act, Thereafter, a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of the Salcon Group of Companies, including that of the assessee, on 09.06.2022. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act for A.Y. 2020-21 and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 13.01.2023. The assessment was completed on 25.03.2024 under section 147/143(3) of the Act, and the impugned assessment order has been passed assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.5,92,64,762/-, after making an addition of Rs.5,66,53,862/- on account of alleged unexplained sale consideration. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before us.
At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee stated that the CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order and prayed for setting aside the order to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Per contra, learned DR did not raise any serious objection and relied upon the order of authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) had given opportunities to the assessee and in absence of any response from the assessee, the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order. We are of the considered view that in the interest of natural justice, the CIT(A) may give reasonable opportunity to the assessee to represent the case and therefore, we are of the view that the issues of the case be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee and assessee is likewise directed to avail the opportunities and submit documents/evidence as required by the CIT(A).
The appeal of both the assessees are decided in aforesaid terms.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.