NAVIN KUMAR CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC,
Delhi’s
DIN
&
Order
No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069718218(1) dated
17.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
“the Act”).
2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
3. The assessee raises the following substantive grounds:
“1. The return of the income for the assessment year
2013-14 was filed on31/03/2014 declaring income of Rs
3,62,640/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and was completed on 08/03/2016 at an income of Rs 4,04,430/-after disallowing expenditure being personal nature under the head Car Maintenance, Telephone &
Travelling Expenses to the tune of Rs 41,790/-.
Later on, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued for reopening of the case by recording reason u/s 147 and 2
taking permission of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-
20 New Delhi. The reason was that during the assessment proceedings for the AY 2014-15, it came to notice that assessee has claimed interest expenditure on the loan taken for the construction of the factory building.
This factory was not put to use till date, therefore the same was not allowed and added to the income of the assessee. The AO applied the same reason to the year under question and reopened the case.
Whereas all the facts pertaining to interest of Rs
13,44,924/- were fully disclosed at the initial assessment done under section 143(3) which was completed on 08/03/2016 and no addition was made on this account in the original assessment order. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 is not valid and moreover approval given by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-20 New Delhi is also not valid as it is based on change in opinion which can not be base for reopening of the assessment proceedings as pronounced by various judgements.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-NFAC has erred in law and facts by confirming the disallowance of Rs 13,44,924/- towards interest on the loan taken for the construction of factory building by alleging that factory land building was still under construction and was not put to use during the year under reference and thereby completely ignoring the various documents like VAT registration certificate, electricity bills for the connection installed at the premise, architect certificate submitted during the course of hearing substantiating the use of factory building.
The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(A)-NFAC is arbitrary.
unjustified and against the 3
provisions of the law and such order shall be treated as null and void.”
4. It emerges at the outset, with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC appellate findings have neither framed any point of determination nor any detailed adjudication thereupon is found so as to ensure effective compliance to section 250(6) of the Act. That being the case, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for his fresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities of hearing at the appellant’s risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings.
Ordered accordingly.
5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced in Open Court at the time of hearing. (Satbeer Singh Godara)

Judicial Member

Dated: 21/04/2025

SR BHATNAGAR