ACIT, CIR 10(1), NEW DELHI vs. HARISH CHANDRA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9111/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 July 20264 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not examining the evidence and restoring the issues to the AO without proper adjudication. The CIT(A) should have examined the facts and evidence to return findings on the assessee's claims.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for disallowed expenses, share application money, sundry creditors, depreciation, and other non-genuine expenses due to the assessee's non-response to notices. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside the assessment order and restoring the issues to the AO without adjudicating on the merits of the assessee's claims and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 145(2),Section 68,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

P a g e | 1 ITA No.9111/Del/2025 Harish Chandra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2007-08) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.9111/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

ACIT, Circle 10(1) Vs. Harish Chandra 389A, CR Building, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. IP Estate, 100A, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi – 110002 Delhi – 110007 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AABCH1721M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 29.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2026

O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 09.10.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

P a g e | 2 ITA No.9111/Del/2025 Harish Chandra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2007-08) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by DCIT, Circle 12(1) New Delhi, for AY: 2007-08.

2.

On hearing ld. DR we find that assessment order though passed u/s 143(3) of the Act has been set aside by ld. CIT(A) to assessing officer for fresh adjudication with a direction to make fresh assessment after examining the issue by issue of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and after giving adequate opportunity to the assesse. We have gone through the impugned assessment order and the same mentions of notice u/s 143(2) followed by questionnaire u/s 143(1) being issued and in response to which authorized representative has appeared from time to time and submitted the requisite details which were part of the assessment record and assesse was asked to further justify ledger expenses and even assesse was asked to file audit report vide subsequent notice u/s 142(1) but the assesse had not responded the same and the AO rejected the books of accounts invoking Section 145(2) of the Act making addition on account of disallowance expenditure. Further, AO records of notice being issued to assesse for filing evidence for establishing genuineness of transaction of share application money, however, again assesse had not responded and an addition was made u/s 68. Further, AO had called confirmations of sundry creditors but again assesse had not responded and therefore, AO concluded that these are bogus liabilities and

P a g e | 3 ITA No.9111/Del/2025 Harish Chandra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2007-08) addition was made. Further, the claim of depreciation was examined and in the absence of evidence the same was also found to be bogus. Further, disallowance was made on account of certain expenses which were not found genuine. Thus, returned income of Rs.21,98,990/- was recomputed at Rs.5,34,93,759/- in the impugned order NFAC has merely reproduced the assessment order and mention that assesse had filed various replies and furnished additional evidences. NFAC mentions remand report was also claimed which has not been submitted by AO. In para 5.3 NFAC mentions of the evidences filed with regard to issue for which AO has given adverse finding, however, instead of examining all these evidence ld. NFAC has resorted to a short note of restoring the issue on merits to the AO by observing that the issue is require extensive inquiries and verification which may not be possible at the level of Commissioner (Appeal).

3.

We are of the considered view that these observations of NFAC in para 5.5 of the impugned order are against the mandate of law and it is not case where best assessment order was passed so as to restore the issue back to AO. NFAC should have been examined the facts and evidence and returned the finding on the genuineness of claims of assesse.

P a g e | 4 ITA No.9111/Del/2025 Harish Chandra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2007-08) 4. In the light of aforesaid the impugned order of ld. First Appellate Authority is set aside and issue are restored to files of ld. CIT(A) to give its own findings on the issue raised by assesse on the basis of material before ld. CIT(A) but after opportunity of hearing given to the assesse. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M Balaganesh) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated 15.07.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →