S-NET FREIGHT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 22(1), DELHI

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal filed by the Assessee is against order dated 12.12.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] arising out of assessment order dated 30.10. 2017 of the Ld. Assessing Officer/ Income Tax Officer, Ward- 22(1), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'the AO') for Asst. Year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 30.11.2015 declaring loss of Rs.4,98,350/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 08.04.2016 and Notice 142(1) along with detailed questionnaire was issued on 03.07.2017. Sh. Kunal Sehgal Advocate, Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared and filed details. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 30.10.2017 made addition of Rs.1,15,20,151/- and Rs. 40,187/-. 3. Against order dated 30.10.2017 of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2023. 4. Being aggrieved appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds of appeal: “1. That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the AO in assessing the taxable total income of Rs. 1,10,61,988/-, as against the returned loss of Rs.38,52,624/- declared by the assessee. 2. That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment, even while the same is bad in law, void ab initio and in violation to the well-settled principals of natural justice. 3. That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the AO in subjecting to tax, Rs. 1,15,20,151/-on account of difference in the receipts as per Form 26AS and as per books of accounts. 4. That on facts and in law, AO and CIT(A) have erred in not allowing the assessee with carry forward of current year business loss of Rs.33,54,274/-, which is otherwise allowable to the assessee as per the provisions of section 72 of the Act. 5. That on facts and in law levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act in bad in law. 6. That the appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary the ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 5. Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO in violation of principle of natural justice. The matter may be restored to file of Ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. Departmental Representative had no objection to the submissions of Ld. Authorized Representative. 7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) through ex-parte order dated 12.12.2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Assesse was issued notices for hearing but the assessee could not appear. In view of the above material facts in interest of justice order dated 12.12.2023 of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 20.03.2026. (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIMAL KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20.03.2026 *PK, Sr. Ps*