BALESH JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-55(4), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the appeal before it was filed 52 days late, but condoned the delay upon being shown sufficient cause by the assessee. It was an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the NFAC, the assessee failed to file submissions and did not appear before the NFAC after filing the appeal, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the issue to the file of the NFAC. The NFAC was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims and decide the issue on merits. The assessee was also directed to appear before the NFAC and cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. No specific finding was given on the merits of the grounds of appeal as the matter was remanded.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Balesh Jain & Sons HUF, is in appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 11-12-2024. This order pertained to Assessment Year 2014-15 and arose from an assessment order dated 23-05-2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case was re-opened under Section 147, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 29-06-2022. The assessee filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 10,80,400/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 87,60,348/- under Section 68. The NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte. The appeal before the ITAT was filed 52 days late, which was condoned due to sufficient cause shown by the assessee.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the re-opening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act is bad in law and on wrong facts? 2. Whether the Assessing Officer ignored the assessee's replies submitted online and passed an ex-parte order? 3. Whether any addition can be made under Section 68 of the Act in the given circumstances, specifically concerning alleged dealings and receipt of money from Mr. Naresh Manakchand Jain, and the sale of shares amounting to Rs. 86,22,410/- paid by SM Global Securities? Assessee's contentions (as per grounds of appeal): The re-opening is bad in law and on wrong facts. The AO ignored online replies and passed an ex-parte order. There were no dealings with Mr. Naresh Mankchand Jain, no money was received from him, and no deposit was shown in the bank. An addition under Section 68 is not sustainable. The assessee sold shares for Rs. 86,22,410/- and received payment from SM Global Securities. Revenue's contentions: Departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. The assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the NFAC, and the appeal was rightly rejected.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI
Before: AND
Date of hearing: 03/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 06/02/2026 ORDER
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. NFAC)”] vide order dated 11-12-2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 arising out the assessment order dated 23-05-2023 u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’).
The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 52 days. The assessee has stated that the appeal could not be filed within time due to miscommunication of the filing clerk. The assessee has shown the sufficient cause not to file the appeal within time therefore, the application is allowed and delay is condoned, appeal is admitted for adjudication.
The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal as under:
1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the Ld. AO is bad in law and facts of the case.
2. That the re-opening is bad in law and on wrong facts.
3. That the AO has ignored all the reply submitted by the assessee through online portal time to time and passed an ex-parte order.
4. That there is no dealing with Mr. Naresh Mankchand .
5. That no money was received from Mr. Naresh Manakchand Jain and no deposit shown in the bank.
6. That in the current circumstances of the matter, no addition can be made under section 68 of the case.
7. That the AO has no appreciated the fact that Assessee has sold a share of RS. 86,22,410.00 and payment was received from SM Global Securities.
8. That no addition can be made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.
9. That the appellant reverse the right to alter /add any / all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was re-opened for A.Y. 2014-15 u/s147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued dated 29-06-2022. In the response of the notice the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.10,80,400/-. The assessing Officer completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs.87,60,348/- under section 68 of the Act. 4.1 Aggrieved the order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 11-12-2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
None is present for assessee. Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that the assessee has not taken part in the proceedings before the Ld. NFAC. The appeal was rightly rejected by the Ld. NFAC.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by Ld. NFAC, the assessee did not file his submissions, for which the appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. NFAC.
Since in the instant case the assesse has failed to file his submission after availing the various opportunity. The assessee did not appear before the Ld. NFAC after filing the appeal. The Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. NFAC and co-operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised
by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court 06.02.2026.
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 →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
