SHRI OMKAR NAGARI SAH PAT SANSTHA,SANGLI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI, DELHI
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "ए" न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH,
PUNE
BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1617/PUN/2024
धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16
Shri Omkar Nagari Sahpat
Sanstha Ltd.,
Patrakar Nagar, Behind St
Stand, Sangli-416416
Maharashtra
PAN-AABAS8331A
Vs.
NFAC, Delhi
अपीलार्थी / Appellant
प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent
Assessee by:
CA Kishor Phadke
Department by:
Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Date of hearing:
07-08-2025
Date of Pronouncement:
14-08-2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 dated 25.04.2022
of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. Learned CIT (A) has erred in fact and in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming addition made by A.O. by passing ex parte order, without providing sufficient opportunity and the rights and liabilities of the appellant are not adjudicated and hence, the order may please be set aside to lower authorities/ to A.Ο.
2. The assessee prays that all the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT [A] has erred in confirming action of AO in proceeding with reassessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act
2
instead of proceeding under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence the order passed is bad in law being beyond any juri iction and need to quashed. The Appellant prays that it be held accordingly.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT [A] has erred in confirming action of AO that is the order passed by Ld.AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B is bad in law as much as it appears that no independent inquiry was made by Ld. AO and the belief was formed merely on the vague information received. Accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings based on borrowed satisfaction needs to be quashed. The Appellant prays that it be held accordingly.
5. On the facts and under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT [A] has erred in confirming action of AO in not appreciating the material on record and submitted during the assessment proceedings and considering entire amount of Rs. 1,61,50,711/- as addition under section 69A. He failed to appreciate the fact that, the assessee had duly shown the bank account and the relevant transactions in the audited books of accounts. Consequentially, he failed to appreciate the fact that, income element embedded in the abovementioned transactions is already accounted for in the audited books of accounts. The appellant prays that the addition be deleted accordingly.
6. On the facts and under the circumstances, the the Ld. CIT [A] has erred in confirming action of AO in not appreciating the material on record and submitted during the assessment proceedings and considering entire amount of Rs. 10,44,55,000 as addition under section 69A. He failed to appreciate the fact that, the assessee had duly shown the relevant bank accounts and the relevant transactions in the audited books of accounts.
Appellant craves to leave, add / alter or amend any other grounds of appeal.
At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that in the impugned proceedings assessee failed to appear resulting into the dismissal by Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of justice he requested for providing one more opportunity to pray before Ld. CIT(A).
On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee is an Association of Persons and has not filed the regular return of income for A.Y. 2015- 16. The notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 has been issued after getting proper approval of the competent authority and duly served upon the assessee. Assessee failed to comply even after being served with valid notice u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act. Ld.Assessing Officer (AO) framed best judgement assessment assessing income at Rs. 12,06,05,711/- after making additions u/s 69A at Rs. 1,61,50,711/- and Rs.
3
10,44,55,000/- Though the assessee has filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on 25.04.2022 but thereafter on the date of hearing fixed for 16.11.2022, 03.01.2023, 20/12/2023 and 10.03.2024 assessee either failed to appear or did not file the requisite details. As a result Ld. CIT(A) referring to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N.
Bhattacharjee & other 118 ITR 461 (SC) dismissed the assessee’s appeal.
However considering the prayer made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and set aside the impugned order and remit all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication in accordance with law as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 14th day of August, 2025. (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; ददिांक / Dated: 14th August, 2025. Neeta
4
आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant.
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. The Pr. CIT concerned.
4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "A" बेंच,
पुणे / DR, ITAT, "A" Bench, Pune.
5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File.
आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER,
Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.