NIDHI AGGARWAL ,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 53(2) , DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-compliance. However, considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the NFAC for a final opportunity to the assessee to present its substantive claim and for a decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return for AY 2017-18, which was selected for limited scrutiny due to cash deposits during demonetization. The AO made an addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) upheld the addition. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed for non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without deciding on merits and whether the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”DELHI
Before: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Date of hearing 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The assessee preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short “NFAC”), Delhi pertaining to assessment order for Assessment year 2017-18 dated 30.12.2019 passed under Sections 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”).
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1.That the addition of Rs 60,00,000/- made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The addition of Rs 60,00,000/- is liable to be deleted.
2. That the appellant has maintained true and correct books of accounts. The appellant has filed the correct return of income as per law and the addition is totally incorrect and not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. That the lower authorities have not been able to find any fault in the books of accounts of the appellant and the addition of Rs 60,00,000/- is made without any reasonable and logical basis.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant has discharged its entire burden of proof and hence the addition of Rs 60,00,000/- should be deleted.
5. That with due respect the lower authorities have not decided the case judiciously and the addition is made and upheld in a wrongful and illegal manner.
6. That the various observations made in the assessment order and the NFAC order are illegal and contrary to the facts and material on record.
7. That the orders passed by the lower authorities are passed in undue haste and in violation of principles of natural justice. The appellant has not been given a proper opportunity to defend his case and to file all evidences and material in its support.
8. That the lower authorities did not consider that Rs 60,00,000/- arose from genuine sales of jewellery as part of revenues of the appellant business which are duly declared before the income tax and VAT authorities and there is no cogent reason with the AO to add Rs. 60,00,000 u/s. 68 of the IT Act.
That Sec 115BBE has been invoked wrongly and illegally in our case. The facts of the case do not warrant invocation of Sec 115BBE at all. 10. That we pray that our returned income may kindly be accepted and the addition of Rs.60,00,000/- may kindly be deleted. 11. That the appellant seeks leave to add, amend, alter any ground of appeal
later or during the course of hearing.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 04.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,27,060/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason “Cash deposits during the demonetization period”. The notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 08.08.2018 through portal and speed post for the compliance of the notice the Ld. AR of the assessee filed the written submission before the AO. After considering the submission submitted by the assessee the AO made the addition of Rs.60 lacs u/s. 68 of the Act.
4. Aggrieved the order of the Ld.AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide order dated 09.01.2025 dismissed the appeal in non-compliance. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for assessee has submitted that Ld. NFAC should have decided the appeal on merit. He also submitted that sufficient opportunity of being heard was not provided by the authority.
Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that the assessee has taken part in the proceedings but not submitted his submission before the Ld. NFAC.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by Ld. NFAC the assessee did not file his submissions before the authority, for which the appeal was dismissed in non -compliance by the NFAC.
Since in the instant case the Ld. NFAC has 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. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. NFAC and co-operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised
by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.06.2025
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
