SPRAY ENGINEERING DEVICES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. ITOACITDCIT-NFAC, NATIONAL FACELSEE ASSESSMENT CENTRE

ITA 885/CHANDI/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 September 202610 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was required to dispose of the grounds raised before it in accordance with law and on the basis of available material. The fact that the assessee did not avail the opportunities granted by the CIT(A) did not dispense with the requirement of a reasoned adjudication of the specific grounds raised, especially when one ground challenged the very jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment. The issues relating to the validity of reopening and the merits of additions under sections 68 and 69C involved examination of facts and documents. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not examined these substantive grounds on their merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate all grounds, including the legal ground on reassessment validity and grounds relating to additions under sections 68 and 69C and adjustment against brought-forward losses, strictly in accordance with law. The assessee was granted one effective and final opportunity to substantiate its claims. As a condition for fresh adjudication, the assessee was directed to plant 300 trees of Indian/native origin at its own cost, with a compliance report to be furnished to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Spray Engineering Devices Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was filed 99 days late, with the delay being condoned. The assessee had originally declared a loss of Rs.9,50,80,496/-. The original assessment under section 143(3) was completed at Nil income. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding accommodation entries. A notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. During reassessment, the Assessing Officer treated Rs.3,50,00,000/- from the sale of shares as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 and Rs.8,75,000/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. The assessment order dated 31.03.2022 determined total income at Rs.3,58,75,000/-. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 were valid, given that the notice under section 148 was issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, despite the original assessment being completed under section 143(3) and all material particulars being fully and truly disclosed by the assessee? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 147 and Section 148). 2. Whether the addition of Rs.3,50,00,000/- as an unexplained cash credit under section 68, and the consequential addition of Rs.8,75,000/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C, were justified on merits? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 68 and Section 69C). 3. Whether the Assessing Officer failed to adjust the addition under section 68 against the brought-forward losses of the assessee? (Question of law and fact). Assessee's contentions: The reassessment proceedings were invalid. The additions under sections 68 and 69C were not examined on merits by the first appellate authority. The assessee should be granted an effective opportunity to present evidence regarding the share sale, consideration, identity, genuineness, and brought-forward losses. The matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Revenue's contentions: The assessee was provided repeated opportunities by the CIT(A) but failed to comply. There is no justification for restoring the matter merely to provide another opportunity. The order of the CIT(A) should be sustained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 68,Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI VIJAY VARMA

For Appellant: Shri Aarush Aggarwal, CA &, Shri Vineet Aggarwal, CA
For Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, CIT -DR
Hearing: 03.09.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

PER LALIET KUMAR, JM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["ld. CIT(A)"], for Assessment Year 2013-14, whereby the appeal of the assessee against the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income-tax A.Y.2013-14 2 Act, 1961 ("the Act") was dismissed. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing/engineering activities an

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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →