PUNEET NANDA,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6431/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2026AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for delay, but the CIT(A) also made observations on merits, which was not legally permissible. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of credit entries in a bank account allegedly maintained by the assessee with HDFC Bank. The assessee claimed these credit entries were duly reported as income in the firm's return.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of bank credit entries was justified, and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for delay while also making observations on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Hearing: 26.02.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated

17.03.2025 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

(hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’)

in DIN & Order No.: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074569833(1) arising out

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 6431/Del/2025 Puneet Nanda (AY: 2013-14) of the order dated 09.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the Assessment

Unit, Income Tax Department, for AY: 2013-14.

2.

On hearing both sides we find that the assessment order was pssed u/s

147 r.w.s 144 of the Act wherein assessing officer has made an addition on

account of credit entries in account allegedly maintained by assessee with

HDFC Bank Muzaffarnagar assessee proprietor of M/s Gobind Trading

Company and is maintaining this account with HDFC Bank Muzaffarnagar.

Ld. counsel has submitted that in the return filed by the firm the credit entries

have been duly reported as income. We find that as assessee approached ld.

CIT(A) the appeal of assessee was dismissed for delay in filing the appeal by

75 days. Thereafter ld. CIT(A) has also made observations on merits.

Something which is not under law as if the appeal was dismissed on ground

of delay that at all merits would be discussed. We find that in fact assessee

had failed to appear before ld. CIT(A) and observations were also made by

ld. CIT(A) on the fact that in spite of notices assessee is not appearing.

3.

In the light of aforesaid considering that the assessment order was

passed u/s 144 of the Act and ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 6431/Del/2025 Puneet Nanda (AY: 2013-14) income has been reported in the hands of firm. We consider it appropriate

case to set aside the impugned order and restore the issue on merits to the

files of the ld. Assessing Officer to give fresh opportunity of hearing to the

assessee and pass assessment order afresh.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (Anubhav Sharma) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 29.04.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →