Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed a return declaring a loss, and the case was selected for scrutiny. No compliance was made by the assessee, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to complete the assessment ex-parte. The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 1231 days without condonation.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the NFAC should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits, especially since an ex-parte assessment order was passed.
Key Issues
Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, and whether the matter should be restored to the AO for a decision on merits.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR
07/01/2026 Date of hearing: 14/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement: ORDER
PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Centre (NFAC) Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC)”], vide order dated 03.07.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 and arises out of the assessment order dated 20-12- 2019 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’].
The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:
1. That the appellant company denies its liability to be assed at total income of Rs.33,61,24,760/- as against the returned loss of Rs.33,56,318/- and accordingly denies its liability to pay tax ant interest demanded thereon.
2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has erred in law and facts in framing the impugned assessment order and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.AO has erred in law and facts in making addition of Rs.8,63,10,315/- on account of increase of trade payables during the year under consideration and that too by treating it as alleged unexplained credits u/s 68 and by recording incorrect facts and findings and without following the principles of natural justice and providing any adverse material on record. 4.That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.8,63,10,315/- alleged unexplained credits u/s 68 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts in making addition of Rs.98,42,752/- on account of increase of other Current liabilities and that too by treating it as alleged unexplained credits u/s 68 and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without following the principles of natural justice and providing any adverse material on record. 6. .That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs,98,42,752/- on account of increase pf other Current liabilities and that too by treating it as alleged unexplained credits u/s 68 is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts in making disallowances of expenses incurred during into Work in Progress of Rs.24,33,28,011/- in account of Work in Progress and further by treating it as taxable income and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without observing principles of natural justice.
8 That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the Ld. AO in making disallowances of expenses incurred into Work in Progress RS.24,33,28,011/- and treating it taxable income, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and facts in charging interest u/s 234 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
That the appellant craves the leave to add modify amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal
at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30-03-2018 under section 139(4) of the Act declaring a loss of Rs.33,56,318/- . The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS for the following reasons: Low income in comparison to high loans /advances/Investment in shares appearing balance sheet. Large increase in unsecured loans during the year. Real estate business with high closing stock.
4. Notices were issued to the assessee but no compliance was made by the assessee. The Assessing officer completed the assessment after making the addition and assed the total income at Rs.33,61,24,760/-.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed the appeal before the NFAC, who vide his order dated 03-07-2025 dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. Being aggrieved order the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. AR has submitted that the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going into the ground of the delay. He submitted that sufficient cause has been shown by the assessee not to file the appeal within time. He also submitted the Ld. NFAC should have condoned the delay and matter sent to the Assessing Officer because the Assessing Officer passed the ex-parte assessment order against the assessee.
Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue relied upon the orders of the below authorities. She submitted that the appeal was filed by 1231 days delay without any sufficient cause. The appeal was rightly dismissed by the Ld. NFAC.
We have heard the revival contention of the parties and gone through the material available on record. Perusal of the order of the Ld. NFAC revels that the appeal was dismissed on the technical point not condoning the delay of 1231 days. The assessee has shown the sufficient cause not filing the appeal within time. The Ld. NFAC should have condoned the delay and should have decided the appeal on merit, because in this appeal the Assessing Officer passed the ex-parte assessment order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file to the Assessing officer 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 Assessing Officer and co-operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised
by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.