SAIJA FINANCE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of written submissions alone is not sufficient grounds to uphold an addition. It also noted that it was unclear if the Commissioner (Appeals) had specifically requested documents. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's primary grievance was the lack of a proper hearing opportunity by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld an addition made by the Assessing Officer, citing the assessee's failure to file written submissions and produce supporting documents.
What were the issues?
Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred by upholding an addition without providing a proper opportunity for hearing and by relying solely on the absence of written submissions. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) adequately considered the assessee's case when the Assessing Officer made an addition on an estimated basis.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 06.12.2017 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
I have heard Shri P.C. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Shri Om Prakash, learned Departmental Representative.
The primary grievance of the assessee is against lack of opportunity of hearing provided by learned Commissioner (Appeals) before disposing of the appeal.
On a perusal of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), particularly, the observations made by him in paragraph 5 of the order, it is observed, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer because instead of filing any written submissions, the authorized representative of the assessee made oral submission. Of course, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that assessee failed to produce relevant details/documents to substantiate the book results declared by it.
In my view, non-filing of written submissions by itself, cannot be a ground to uphold the addition. As regards non-production of relevant details/documents to substantiate the book results, it is not forthcoming from the order of the first appellate authority whether he has specifically called for any details/documents.
Undisputedly, while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has determined the income of the assessee on a purely estimate basis. While doing so, he has alleged that assessee could not substantiate the accounting entries made in the books of accounts.
Prima facie, it appears, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has simply adopted the reasoning of the Assessing Officer without going deep into the issue.
In view of the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Learned Departmental Representative is in agreement with this decision.
Further, it is open to the assessee to furnish all relevant details/documents before the Assessing Officer, if not filed earlier, to substantiate its claim. Accordingly, grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
