SURENDER KUMAR BENGANI,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1077/JODH/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 July 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both lower authorities decided the matter on non-compliance. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee to submit evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance. The assessee argued that documentary evidence was ignored and the addition was based on suspicion, despite providing loan details, bank statements, and repayment information.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on the merits of the case, and if the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Kumar Garg CA
For Respondent: Shri Vaibhav Agarwal Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1077/Jodh/2025 (Assessment Year – 2019-20) Surender Kumar Bengani Commissioner of Income Tax 223, Veer Apartment, Sector- (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi-10001 13, Rohini, Delhi-110085 PAN No. ABFPB2792N Assessee by Shri Surendra Kumar Garg CA (Physically) Revenue by Shri Vaibhav Agarwal Addl. CIT-DR (Virtual) Date of Hearing 14 / 05 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 29 / 07 / 2026. ORDER PER: SUDHIR PAREEK, J.M. The aforetitled appeal has been preferred by the assessee/appellant against the order dated 16.09.2025 u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short referred as ‘the Act’) passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), [for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as NFAC/CIT(A)] by which appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

2.

Heard rival submissions and carefully scanned the material available on record.

2 ITA No. 1077/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2019-20 3. Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR submitted and expressed the grievance that the Ld. authorities erroneously ignored the documentary evidence furnished during the assessment proceeding mentioning that no submission is being filed by the appellant, which conclusively established he genuineness of the transactions/ claims made by the assessee/appellant.

4.

The Ld. AR also submitted that the entire addition is proceeds on suspicion arising from third party information, without disproving the documents furnished by the appellant and it is also submitted that the Ld. AO himself records that the appellant furnished details of the transaction, bank statements, confirmation of account, repayment details, TDS details and explanation regarding business necessity of the loan. Despite this, the Ld. AO made the addition merely because the appellant did not furnish documents such as loan agreement and mortgage details, even though the appellant had explained that the loan was collateral-free and advanced by an NBFC in the normal course of lending and expressed grievance that the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the merits of the case and simply dismissed ex-parte on the grounds of non-compliance, without dealing with the

3 ITA No. 1077/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2019-20 material already on assessment record and it was obligatory to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merit.

5.

Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. AO observed in assessment order that the appellant failed to furnish the information regarding loan agreement, reason for taking unsecured loan relationship with the M/S New KMS Finance Ltd and details of the mortgage against the loan. Thereafter the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing that appellant failed to adduce any evidence required during the course of proceedings despite being giving sufficient opportunity.

7.

From bare perusal of the record, it is seen that both lower authorities decided the matter on non-compliance and in such circumstances we are of considered opinion that matter should be decided on its merits and for this purpose if one more opportunity given to the assessee/appellant for submitting his case by desired evidences and submissions, the object of the justice may be served to some extent so we inclined to restored the matter

4 ITA No. 1077/Jodh/2025 Asst. Year: 2019-20 back to the file of the Ld. AO for afresh adjudication. On the other hand, we direct the assessee/appellant to cooperate in the proceedings.

9.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 29 / 07 / 2026 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules,1963.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 29 / 07 / 2026. Pritesh Vaishnav PS True Copy Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →