FAYAZ AHMAD RATHER,GANDERBAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR

ITA 654/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 September 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was mechanical and arbitrary. The Tribunal observed that while the assessment was completed ex-parte, the assessee had furnished written submissions before the First Appellate Authority, which were reproduced in the appellate order. Despite these submissions being described as exhaustive by the Tribunal, the NFAC's order confirmed the additions without adverting to them and lacked proper reasoning. The NFAC's observation that the appellant made 'partial submissions' and did not submit supporting documents for cash deposits, leading to the confirmation of additions of Rs. 12,23,250/- (cash deposits) and Rs. 11,10,626/- (business income), was deemed insufficient reasoning. The Tribunal found the NFAC's conclusion to be bereft of any reasoning and clearly non-speaking. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the NFAC's order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Fayaz Ahmad Rather, is an individual resident. For Assessment Year 2017-18, he failed to file a return of income under Section 139(1) and did not comply with a notice under Section 142(1). Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144, determining the total income at Rs. 23,33,876/- by making additions. The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC dismissed the appeal, confirming the additions. The assessee filed the present appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 84 days, which the Tribunal condoned. The assessee's primary grievance is that the NFAC's order was non-reasoned and dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18, which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer, is a well-reasoned and speaking order, or is it mechanical and arbitrary? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the NFAC's order was bereft of any reasoning, did not advert to the submissions made by the assessee, and was therefore mechanical and arbitrary. The assessee contended that the NFAC dismissed the appeal without proper adjudication of the issues raised. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the Tribunal. However, the NFAC's order, as quoted in the judgment, stated that the appellant submitted partial submissions and failed to provide supporting documents for cash deposits, leading to the confirmation of additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Faheem Ferdous, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. DR

PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.:

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 17.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 84 days in filing the appeal.

3.

After considering the submissions of the assessee explaining the cause of delay, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

2 Asst. Year: 2017-18 The basic grievance of the assessee is against dismissal of his appeal, more or less for non-prosecution, without passing a well-reaso

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →