S.P. NIGAM vs. ACIT, CC-13,,

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 435/DEL/2005Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 January 20235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was unsustainable because it was cryptic and unreasoned. For the ends of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of the learned Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to appear and file relevant documents as and when required. The Tribunal also stated that if the assessee defaulted or failed to cooperate, the Commissioner would be at liberty to pass a reasoned order based on the available material. The specific additions made by the Assessing Officer were not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, S.P. Nigam, filed an appeal against the order dated 18.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-X, New Delhi, for the block period 01.04.1996 to 15.07.2002. A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted on 15.07.2002. The assessee was issued a notice under Section 158BC and filed a return declaring 'Nil' income. The Assessing Officer made two additions totaling Rs. 88,81,000/- on account of cash credits in the bank accounts of Bhutani & Associates. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these additions in a brief order, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is sustainable in law, given its cryptic and unreasoned nature, as per Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the order of the Ld. Commissioner was unsustainable due to its cryptic and unreasoned nature. No specific authorities or precedents were mentioned in the judgment for the assessee's arguments. Revenue's contentions: The revenue did not present any arguments in the judgment. The Ld. CIT/DR appeared for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 158BC,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 25.01.2023

PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M.

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against

the order dated 18.10.2005, impugned herein, passed by

the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-X, New

Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 250 of the Income-

2 IT(SS)A No. 435/Del/2005

tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Block Period

01.04.1996 to 15.07.2002.

2.

In the instant case, a search and seizure action u/s.

132 of the Act was carried out at the residential premises of

the Assessee along with the business as well as residential

premises of ‘NC Bansal’ Group of cases on 15.07.2002.

Consequently, by issuing a notice 31.03.2003 u/s. 158BC of

the Act, the Assessee was asked to file its return of income

for the block period ending 15.07.2002 within 30 days of the

receipt of notice, in response to which the Assessee filed its

return of income on 27.05.2003 by declaring its income at

Rs. “Nil”. Subsequently, statutory notices have also been

issued to the Assessee.

The Assessing Officer ultimately, vide assessment order

dated 29.07.2004 passed u/s. 158BC of the Act made two

additions of Rs.31,75,000/- and Rs.57,06,000/- respectively,

on account of cash credits in the bank account of Bhutani &

3 IT(SS)A No. 435/Del/2005

Associates with Global Trust Bank Account and credits in the

bank account of Bhutani & Associates with Corporation Bank,

Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

3.

The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said

additions before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned

order by reproducing the determination made by the

Assessing Officer, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and

sustained the additions referred to above, just by writing

three lines, which reads as under :

“I am left with no other alternative but to endorse the

view of the A.O. The addition of Rs.88,81,000/- is therefore

sustained.”

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

4.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar

facts and circumstances and observe that the order passed

4 IT(SS)A No. 435/Del/2005

by the ld. Commissioner is clearly cryptic in nature and

unreasoned order and therefore un-sustainable, however for

the ends of justice and for just decision of the case, we are

inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the

instant case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision

afresh on merits, suffice to say, by affording reasonable

opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

We also direct the Assessee to appear, if necessitates,

and to file relevant documents before the ld. Commissioner

in appeal proceedings as and when would be needed for

proper adjudication of the issues involved and in case of

default/non-cooperation, the Assessee shall not be entitled

for any leniency and the ld. Commissioner would be at

liberty to pass the reasoned order in accordance with law

and considering the material available on record.

5 IT(SS)A No. 435/Del/2005

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2023.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

*aks/-

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →