VIJAY PAL SOLANKI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 44(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7596/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 March 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower appellate authority failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds raised by the assessee on merits, violating the mandate of section 250(6). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2013-14 was heard ex-parte as the assessee did not appear. The Assessing Officer made additions under sections 37, 69, and 68, which were upheld by the lower appellate authority. The assessee had also sought to raise an additional ground regarding the nature of scrutiny assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower appellate authority properly adjudicated the assessee's grounds of appeal on merits, and if not, whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 69,Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.03.2025Pronounced: 28.03.2025

Date of hearing 26.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 28.03.2025 ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15 [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 14.08.2019 passed in case no. 35/16-17, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He had also not put in appearance on the earlier hearings as well. We thus proceed ex-parte against the assessee.

3.

It is next noticed with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his regular assessment herein on 31st March, 2016, inter alia, making section 37 disallowance followed by section 69 and 68 additions; involving varying sums, respectively, which stand upheld in the ex- parte lower appellate discussion.

4.

The Revenue vehemently contends that both the learned lower authorities have rightly disallowed/added the impugned sums in assessee’s case on account of his failure to explain the source of his cash credits/deposits as well as investments etc., which need to be upheld herein as well. Our attention is further invited to the lower appellate ex-parte proceedings against the assessee in pages 4 to 5. 5. We note in this factual backdrop that there is no adjudication on merits, so far as the assessee’s various substantive grounds raised in his lower appeal are concerned, which indeed goes against the legislative mandate under section 250(6) of the Act, requiring

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →