ANTONIUS TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3502/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that their submissions were overlooked. The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order, remanding the case for readjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an ex-parte order by the NFAC which confirmed additions made by the AO. The assessee contended that their submissions were not considered by the NFAC, rendering the order erroneous.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions and if the case should be remanded for proper adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26/06/2025Pronounced: 26/06/2025

O R D E R

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

1.

This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the "(Ld. NFAC)"] dated 31.05.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18. The word Act hereinafter in this order shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the outset the ld counsel for the Assessee submitted that the ld CIT(A) has dismissed his appeal ex-parte without affording the Assessee due opportunity of being heard. It was stated that accordingly, the confirmation by the ld CIT(A) of the addition made by the ld AO of Rs. 2,11,12,736/- and Rs. 1,35,75,000/- u/s 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act was excessive and erroneous. The ld counsel vehemently argued that the submissions were filed before the ld CIT(A) which were omitted to be considered. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be remitted back to the ld CIT(A) for readjudication after giving due opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The ld counsel assured that due compliances shall be made to the statutory notices of the First Appellate Authority.

3.

Per contra the ld DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities.

4.

We have heard rival submissions in the light of the materials available on the record. We find force in the arguments of the Assessee regarding his filing submissions before the ld CIT(A). It appears that the same were omitted to be considered by him inadvertently. We are conscious that no litigant gains by non prosecution of its case. Be that as it may we are of the considered view that assessee deserves another chance to defend his case before the Ld first appellate authority. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and direct him to readjuducate the appeal by giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26/06/2025.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →