Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the order of the NFAC which treated entire receipts as income, denying benefit under Section 44AD. The assessee claimed not to have received notices from the NFAC.
Held
The Tribunal found that the NFAC failed to properly record the service of notices. Since the assessee raised substantial questions of facts, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Key Issues
Whether proper service of notice was effected by the NFAC, and if substantial questions of facts were considered.
Sections Cited
44AD
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Somnath Bobal, Vs ITO, M-77, 1st Floor, Ward 44(1), Vikas Puri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. PAN: AQRPB6234L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Surender Kapoor, CA Revenue by : Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC.
On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessee has challenged the impugned orders of the ld. tax authorities below on merits submitting that the AO has treated the entire receipts as income of the assessee and the assessee was entitled to benefit u/s 44AD of the Act. However, we find that in spite of notices the assessee failed to appear before NFAC. The ld. AR has submitted that the assessee has not received notices. Although the ld. DR has defended the order of the NFAC submitting that sufficient notices were given, however, we find that the