MANOHAR LAL & SONS,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-63(3), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) and present its arguments.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income. The AO completed the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 10,27,531/- on account of bogus purchases. The CIT(A) upheld this addition in an ex parte order.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of bogus purchases was justified, considering the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) and the order was passed ex parte.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : G : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex parte order dated 16th January, 2019 of the CIT(A), New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2008-09.
The assessee in its various grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining various additions made by the AO.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm and filed its return of income on 27th September, 2008 declaring total income at Rs.46,190/- . The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act on 15th March, 2016, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.10,73,720/- wherein he made addition of Rs.10,27,531/- on account of bogus purchases. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) in the ex parte order passed by him, upheld the addition made by the AO.
Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance before the CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order, sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) and substantiate its case, failing which the ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 17th November, 2020 itself.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026