CELLCAP INVOFIN INDIA PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2393/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeals ex parte for non-prosecution, without delving into the merits of the additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that for the Assessment Year 2015-16, on identical facts and circumstances, it had previously restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee. Given that all these appeals arose from proceedings under Section 153A, and considering the precedent set for AY 2015-16, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore all the present appeals to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ajay Garg, filed appeals against orders of the CIT(Appeals)-30, Delhi, for assessment years 2016-17 to 2021-22. The CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeals ex parte for non-prosecution, relying on decisions in Multiplan India Ltd. and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT. The assessee contended that the CIT(Appeals) did not adjudicate the merits of the additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee pointed to a previous ITAT order for AY 2015-16, where a similar situation led to the restoration of the appeal to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. The revenue did not object to restoring the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals ex parte for non-prosecution without adjudicating the merits of the additions made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The CIT(Appeals) erroneously dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution, citing decisions like Multiplan India Ltd. and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar, without considering the substantive issues of the additions made under Section 69A. The assessee relied on a previous ITAT order for AY 2015-16, which restored a similar appeal to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not raise any serious objection to the restoration of the appeals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI M BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, CA &, Shri Akshat Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Hearing: 23.09.2025

Assessee by Shri Rajat Jain, CA & Shri Akshat Jain, CA Revenue by Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 23.09.2025 23.09.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

All these appeals are filed by the Assessee against different orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-30, Delhi dated 28.02.2025 for various assessment years from 2016-17 to 2021-22 in sustaining the addition made u/s 69A of the Act.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the orders dismissing the appeal ex parte applying 1 to 2398./Del/2025 the decision in the case of Multiplan India Ltd. and the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT for non prosecution of the appeals. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) did not go into the merits of the addition in detail. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that for the AY 2015-16 in ITA 2347/Del/2025 this Tribunal by order dated 04.06.2025 restored the appeal to the file of the Ld.

CIT(A) on identical situation. Copy of the order is placed on record.

Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that all these appeals may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

3.

The Ld. DR has no serious objection in restoring the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

Heard rival contentions, we also perused the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and the decision of the Tribunal for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal on the very same facts situation for the AY 2015-16 restored the appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Since all these appeals which arises out of the proceedings u/s 153A including for the AY 2015-16 and since the appeal for the AY 2015-16 is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, we deem it appropriate to restore all these 2 to 2398./Del/2025 appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication along with the appeal for the AY 2015-16 after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Thus, all these appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.09.2025

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →