ARUNIMA ADCON SEVICES (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD -3(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5444/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 July 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed (for statistical purposes)

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without deciding on the merits, which contravenes Section 250(6) of the Act. The tribunal restored the matter to the NFAC, directing it to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present its case and pass a speaking order on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a loss return for AY 2013-14, which was assessed under Section 143(3) with significant additions and disallowances. The CIT(A) twice dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-compliance, even after the ITAT had previously remanded the case for reconsideration. The current appeal is against the second ex-parte dismissal by the NFAC.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance without deciding on the merits of the additions/disallowances made by the AO, and the failure to provide adequate opportunity of hearing.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 73A,Section 56(2)(viia),Section 68,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 143(2),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “A”:NEW DELHI

Hearing: 22.07.2025

Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of 25.07.2025 pronouncement ORDER PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by theNational Faceless Appeal Centre (herein after referred {NFAC}pertaining to assessment order A.Y. 2013-14 Arunima Adcon Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 2 dated07.03.2016 for Assessment year 2013-14 under Sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”).

2.

The assessee has raised the flowing grounds in appeal:

1.

1.

The order of the Ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre is wrong on facts and bad in law, and therefore, is illegal; 2. That the appellant denies its liability to be assessed at total income of Rs. 4,88,68,701/- as against returned loss of Rs. 6,80,38,489/- and accordingly denies its liability to pay tax and interest demanded thereon; 3. The Ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre failed to appreciate that there was neither any concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars; 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and on facts in making a disallowance of Rs.5,17,32,257/- being alleged loss on sale and purchase of shares, as speculative loss under section 73A of the Act and that too without proper appreciation of facts on record, and by recording incorrect facts and findings, and making allegations without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without observing the principal of natural justice; 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and on facts in making a disallowance of Rs. 1,53,14,484/-on account of alleged loss on derivative and that too by making allegations without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and material or evidence and merely conjectures and without observing the principal of natural justice.

6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 1,89,55,449/- on account of alleged credit balance in the account of share broker, M/s Share Indian Securities Ltd and that too by making additions without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without observing the principal of natural justice; A.Y. 2013-14 Arunima Adcon Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 3 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account investment in shares u/s 56 (2) (viia) of the Act, allegedly to cover any leakage of income on this account and that too by making additions without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without observing the principal of natural justice; 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and on facts in denying the claim of carried forward losses of earlier years amount to Rs. 1,42,43,159/- and that too without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without observing the principal of natural justice; 9. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 2,59,05,000/- U/s 68 on account alleged unexplained share application money received by the company and that too by making additions without any basis, material or evidence and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without observing the principal of natural justice; 10. The Ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in passing the said order in haste without giving adequate opportunities of hearing; 11. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law and on the facts in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C, more so when such interest could not be levied under the law.

12.

The appellant reserved the right to add, delete, amend, or substitute any ground of appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has claimed itself to be engaged in the business of trading of shares mainly. The assessee has filed the return of income on 28.09.2013 declaring a loss of Rs.6,80,38,489/-. The return of the assessee company selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notice u/s. A.Y. 2013-14 Arunima Adcon Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 4 143 (2) dated 04.09.2014 was issued and served upon the assessee company. In compliance to the statutory notices the ld. AR of the assessee company attended the proceedings from time to time and filed part details. The AO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee company. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A), the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte on 18-09-2017. Aggrieved the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 20-12-2019 restored the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). In the compliance of the order of the tribunal the Ld. CIT(A) issued the notice to the assessee but assessee was failed to appear before the NFAC and appeal was again dismissed ex parteby observing as under: 5. Thus, facts of the case and position of law clearly indicate that the appellant deliberately avoiding scrutiny of the accounts, therefore, shirked the proceedings. Both at the primary appeal stage and at this stage, it failed to produce any evidence to rebut the additions made by the AO. Manifestly, making bald statements, without supporting documents back those up, are of little value. As a result, I find no reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the AO in his order.

4.

The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that no notices were received to the assessee, if any notice was received to the assessee, he shall attend the proceedings before the NFAC. The assessee company was not found any notice on the ITBA portal. In the support of the contention the assessee has filed the affidavit of Sh. Mayank, director A.Y. 2013-14 Arunima Adcon Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 5 of the company. Ld. A R also submitted that at the relevant time, the ld. counsel attended, another proceeding pending before the appellate authority.

5. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not attend the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is a non, co- operative assessee. The assessee was deliberately avoiding theproceedings.

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted bytheLd. NFAC the assessee did not appear before the authority. Even then the assessee did not appear before the appellate authority in the compliance of the Hon’ble ITAT order. In this case the Ld. NFAC has not decided the appeal on merits which was supposed to as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which read as under; The order of the Deputy commissioner (Appeals) or as the case may be, the commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.

6.

Since in the instant case the Ld. NFAC has simply dismissed the appeal in non-compliance therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantive its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law and pass a speaking order on merit.. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. NFAC and substantiate its case without seeking any adjournments A.Y. 2013-14 Arunima Adcon Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 6 under any pretext, failing which, the Ld. NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. The grounds raised

by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/07/2025.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viia)

All 102 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →