KALI CHARAN SHARMA,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient opportunity and evidence to the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was re-opened due to alleged bogus purchases from two parties. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the purchase amount to the assessee's income, and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was provided with a sufficient opportunity to present evidence regarding the genuineness of purchases. Whether the addition made by the AO was justified in the absence of proper documentation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3105/Del/2025 [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Kali Charan Sharma vs Assessment Unit of IT F-193, Hari Nagar Extension, Department Jaitpur South, Delhi-110044. Delhi PAN-APGPS7066F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by Shri Lokesh Gupta, CA Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 08.06.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 11.03.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18110228536 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order dated 03.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 11.02.2019 at INR 85,69,430/- which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein delayed payment of PF/ESI was added back. Based on the information flagged as per Risk Management Strategy on ITBA portal that assessee has made purchase from 02
ITA No.3105/Del/2025
parties namely, M/s. MJK Trading Pvt. Ltd. of INR 22,97,551/-and from M/s. Omido Trading Pvt. Ltd. of INR 27,22,968/- which were bogus entities providing fake input tax credit under GST Act therefore, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.04.2022. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO held that the purchases made from these two parties as bogus and made the addition of INR 50,20,519/- and accordingly, total income of the assessee was assessed at INR 1,35,89,949/- and levy the tax on the agricultural income of INR 67,50,000/-.
Against the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 11.03.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking various Grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo.
Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The assessee in Ground of appeal No.5 has challenged the order of AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that sufficient opportunity of filing the necessary documents and information which are fatal to the issues was not provided. It is further observed that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in absence of any evidence/information filed by the assessee in support of the Grounds of appeal taken.
ITA No.3105/Del/2025
Looking to the entirety of the facts, we find that assessee has failed to file any submissions or documentary evidences before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the file of AO with the direction to pass the assessment order denovo afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to file all the necessary evidences which remained to be filed in support of claim of purchase made as genuine. Thus, Ground of appeal No.5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Since we have allowed Ground of appeal No.5 raised by the assessee for statistical purposes, the other Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are became academic thus, not adjudicated.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.06.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date:- 08.06.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
