MR. SOMNATH BOBAL,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-44(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1684/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

Whether proper service of notice was effected by the NFAC, and if substantial questions of facts were considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 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

For Appellant: Shri Surender Kapoor, CA
For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

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.

2.

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

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →