KUNAL BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT ITD DELHI, DELHI

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 25.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.05.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

Having explained delay aspect, Ld. AR went ahead to explain the issue involved in present matter. He drew us to assessment-order to show that the AO subjected assessee to the proceeding of section 147 by issuing notice dated 12.07.2022 by alleging that the assessee had received accommodation of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- through an intermediary named M/s NCI Research and Financial Service Ltd. but this allegation made by AO is factually incorrect.

Replying to above in open court, Ld. DR for revenue firstly agreed that the assessee seems to have explained the reason of delay of 193 days in filing of first-appeal to CIT(A). But so far as the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by AO is concerned, Ld. DR submitted that the AO has noted in Para 2 of assessment-order that the assessee has not made compliance to any of the notices issued by him. He submitted that the reply-letter dated

In rejoinder, Ld. AR for assessee explained some more facts. He submitted that the AO undertook proceedings u/s 147 against assessee twice through two separate notices. In the course of first proceeding, the assessee filed aforesaid reply-letter dated 09.11.2021 to AO. Thereafter, the AO set up a newer proceeding u/s 147 though an independent notice dated 12.07.2022. Since the assessee had already filed all details/documents to AO vide earlier reply-letter dated 09.11.2021, the assessee did not feel necessity of responding to the notices issued in newer proceeding set up by AO.

After above deliberations, Ld. Representatives of both sides reached to a consensus that the delay of 193 days in filing first-appeal before CIT(A)

We have considered submissions of both sides and perused the orders of lower authorities. The first issue is the delay in filing of first-appeal before CIT(A). We find that the CIT(A) has, in earlier part of impugned order, condoned the delay but in the later part of very same order, rejected condonation. Be that as it may, the assessee has given a cogent reasoning before CIT(A) qua the delayed filing. In foregoing discussions, we have already narrated the reasoning given by assessee to CIT(A) and as noted by Page 4 of 6 by assessee. Faced with this situation, we condone the delay occurred on the part of assessee in filing first appeal to CIT(A).

Now, coming to the merit of the case made out by AO by way of initiating proceeding u/s 147 and making an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- therein, we find that the assessee has not made compliance to any of the notices issued by AO. Although the assessee filed a reply-letter dated 09.11.2021 to AO denying the transaction of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- but that reply-letter was not filed in present proceedings conducted by AO. Therefore, both sides have consented for remand of this case to the file of AO. We accept the consensus reached by parties and accordingly remand this matter to the file of AO for adjudication afresh. Needless to mention that the AO shall give necessary opportunities to assessee and pass an appropriate order without being influenced by his earlier order. The assessee is also directed to make adequate representation before AO without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.