NYR CREATIONS PRIVATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-18(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1637/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 March 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the appeal was wrongly dismissed due to a misunderstanding regarding the Vivad se Vishwas Act. The matter was therefore remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the NFAC under the mistaken belief that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. The assessee contended that no such declaration was filed and sought a remand for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn due to a mistaken belief about the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas Act, and whether the addition made under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Supriya Mehta, CA, Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.03.2023

Date of Hearing : 20.03.2023 Date of Order : 23.03.2023 ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.07.2022 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

The grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the National Faceless Appellate Centre (NFAC) is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. ./2022

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal holding the same as withdrawn due to DTVSVA 2020 despite the fact that no declaration under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 was filed by the assessee in relation to this appeal.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the NFAC is bad in law, having been passed without giving the assessee an appropriate and adequate opportunity of being heard in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO passing the assessment order against the non-existing company.

5.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,74,40,090/- made by the AO on account of credits in the bank account invoking section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

(ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed ignoring the submissions submitted by the assessee company before the AO.

6.

On the facts and circumstances of the case NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition, ignoring the contention of the assessee that the order has been passed by the AO without independent application of mind and is based on borrowed satisfaction only.

7.

On the facts and circumstances of the case NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition despite the fact that the addition has been made by the AO on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee without giving him an opportunity to rebut the same.

8.

On the facts and circumstances of the case NFAC has erred both on facts and in law ignoring the contention of the assessee that the addition has been made by the AO on the basis of extraneous consideration by grossly indulging into conjecture and surmises.”

3. Although assessee has raised various grounds, the crux of the issue is that the ld. CIT (A) under wrong impression that the assessee has opted for DTVSVA 2020 and accordingly, he has dismissed the appeal. However, factually it is incorrect. Hence, ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed that the matter may be remitted to the ld. CIT (A) to decide the issue on merits.

4.

Upon careful consideration, we agree with the submission of the ld. Counsel of the assessee and this issue is remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of March, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →