AMIT GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD 35(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5480/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 July 2025AY 2021-22Bench: the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 23-08-2024 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, finding sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the NFAC which dismissed the appeal for being time-barred by 315 days. The NFAC's order upheld a penalty of Rs. 15,15,13,260 imposed by the AO, who had also assessed the total income at Rs. 17,83,02,895.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the assessee was provided a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 270A,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 23.07.2025

Date of hearing 23.07.2025 Date of 25.07.2025 pronouncement ORDER PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 23.08.2024passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (herein after referred {NFAC}pertaining the order dated 27.06.2023 under section 270 A of the Income Tax Act 9 (herein referred “the Act” in short)for Assessment year 2021-22.

2.

The assessee has raised the flowing grounds in appeal:

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide proper opportunity of hearing.

2. The Id. CIT(A) has merely stated that notices were issued; but has not mentioned the mode of service of the notices and the Id. CIT(A) has not recorded any finding of facts that the notices were served upon the Assessee.

3.

The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the imposition of the Penalty amounting to Rs.15,15,13,260.00 which is without any basis and without providing proper opportunity of being heard. 4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance made by the Ld A.O. and has not under gone the submitted documents alongwith the appeal and affirm the order and penalty 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the Purchases amounting to Rs.17,67,53,925.00 which is without any basis. 6. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 3,29,100 on account of Rent Paid. 7. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 60,000 on account of Unexplained Expense. 8. The CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 7,00,000 U/s 69C of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The observations of LD CIT(A) as well as LD AO are against the facts of the case and law. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y.2021-22 on 05.03.2022 declaring total income at Rs.459870/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the issue of “Business Purchase”. The assessee has not made

More judgments on Section 270A

All 4,156 judgments and leading authorities on Section 270A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →