Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal is against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The grounds of appeal allege that the NFAC order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard and was not a speaking order on merits.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order on the merits of the case. Therefore, the issues in dispute were remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision on merits after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order was passed without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and whether it was a speaking order on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250, 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D, 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI
Asstt. Year : 2016-17 MARKETHILL CORPORATE VS. ITO , WARD 16(2), ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD., DELHI D-248, 3RD FLOOR, Gali No. 10, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 92 (PAN: AAMCA4003G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 30.05.2025 relating to assessment year 2016-17 on the following grounds:-
1. That the CIT(A) assessment order dated 30.05.2025 passed u/.s 250/143(3) of the Income Tax is illegal, void, contrary to the law and passed without affording the proper / reasonable opportunity of being heard resulting the entire additions were suo motto which is liable to be quashed full arguments shall be advanced at the time of the hearing.
2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by passing the assessment order on 30.05.2025 in a hurried manner despite having time for affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. They unable to make compliance of same on last moment of time as it were not come to their knowledge on regular basis. Hence the order is liable to be quashed full arguments shall be advanced at the time of the hearing.
3. That the CIT(A) has erred in law by passing an order u/s. 143(3) without fulfilling the ingredients of section 143(3) hence the order is liable to be quashed full arguments shall be advanced at the time of the hearing.
4. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and law by making the additions of Rs. 48,13,200/- under “Income From Business & Profession” i.e. treating the entire transactions as “unexplained expenditure” without taking the genuineness of the transactions. Also the CIT(A) has made the addition of Rs. 48,13,200/- without considering the books of account, audit report. Hence, the additions are liable to be deleted full arguments shall be advanced at the time of the hearing.
5. That the CIT(A) has erred in law by directing for charging the interest u/s. 234A/B/C & D full arguments shall be advanced at the time of the hearing.
6. The CIT(A) has erred in law by initiating the penalty proceedings u/s. 272A(1)(d) full arguments shall be advanced at the time of the hearing.
7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the ground before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing, hence, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR.
Upon careful consideration, I find that it was the contention of the assessee made in the grounds of appeal that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the order without affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. It is also noted that CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on the merits of the case, however, he only simply affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding as under:- “In view of above discussion after considering the entire conspectus of the case, I have no hesitation miserably failed to justifiably establish the genuineness of payment salary to the tune of Rs. 48,123,200. Therefore I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the AO dated 12.11.2018 is based on apropos consideration of facts and law and hence the same does not warrant interference. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that AO’s decision of determining total income after disallowance of salary expenditure / additions of Rs. 48,13,200/- on account of un-explained expenditure is justified and in accordance with law. Accordingly, impugned addition stand confirmed. The grounds in this regard are dismissed.”
2 | P a g e 3.1 In view of the aforesaid findings, I am of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on the merits of the case, therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with the directions to decide the issues on merits afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, for which ld. DR has no objection. I hold and direct accordingly. However, the assessee is directed through his Ld.AR to fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) in the proceedings before him.