NITIN KUMAR SHARMA,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal “1. Because the CIT-NFAC grossly erred on law and facts on confirming the Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as the AO has grossly erred on facts and law in making disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,55,34,572/- without taking into account the documents avaliable on record and thus the additions made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act are grossly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and beyond the authority of law. 2. Because the CIT-NFAC grossly erred on law and facts on confirming the Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as the AO has grossly erred on facts and law in making disallowance of expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,55,34,572/- arbitrarily by selecting some expenses and disallowed same completely (100%) on adhoc basis, without allowing some percentage in worse than worst case, as the assessse is doing the actual civil business for government and duly declared the turnover in the audited financial statements and thus the additions made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act are grossly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and beyond the authority of law. 3. Because the CIT(A) NFAC has passed the impugned order ex-parte without proper opportunity of being heard and in limine, without adjudicating any of the jurisdictional and the legal issues raised by the Appellant before the Ld. CIT(A) besides the merits which is in gross violation of the provision of section 250 of the Act, and hence the impugned assessment order is grossly illegal, and liable to be set aside. 4. Because the CIT (Appeals) NFAC has erred in law and fact by dismissing the appeal ex-parte, without adjudicating the grounds raised in the appeal and without appreciating the facts of the case and documentary evidence available on assessment record and therefore the Impugned Order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, to modify, to amend, to delete any ground of appeal in the course of hearing with the leave of the Court and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. . 2.2. At the outset, it is seen that the assessee did not make requisite compliance before the AO resulting in addition of Rs. 1,55,34,572/- on account of disallowance of various expenses in the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 31.03.2021.

CIT(A) 5. DR