ANKUSH GOEL ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 59(8) , DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK
PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM
Aforetitled appeal by Assessee is preferred against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC), Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 03.02.2024 for Assessment Year
2021-22, on the following grounds of appeal: -
ITA No.- 1424/Del/2024
Ankush Goel
2
Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)has erred in law and on facts, in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the order of section 143(3), being the order passed in bad in law and appellant denies the income tax ability. 2. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO, as the appellant has specifically requested for adjournment and CIT(A) made in violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO, as the Ld. AO has not relied upon the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant and appellant truly and fully discharging the onus cast upon him. 4. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of Ld. AO, as the Ld. AO has simply relied upon the unverified and unreliable OST information available and without rebutting the written evidence provided by the appellant. 5. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) without appreciating that on basis of surfeit and inundated evidence on records and the appellant has been fully discharged the burden of ITA No.- 1424/Del/2024
Ankush Goel
3
proof and met so addition made by Ld. AO (Rs. 2,09,90,547/-) and confirmed by CIT-A in impugned order deserves to be deleted.
6. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 143(3) without appreciating that there is no valid basis of any of the addition of 18%
of the purchase amount, applied the % in an arbitrary manner, invalid, illegal in the eyes of law. The internal comparable and external comparable were not performed by the Ld. AO in determining the Gross profit of the appellant.
7. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3), without rejecting the audited books of accounts, and without appreciating that all the additions made are without bringing legally admissible document.
8. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3), wrongly applying the logics of making the addition of difference of the purchase shown in the information available on records and also assuming, presuming that input tax credit has wrongfully gain by the appellant.
ITA No.- 1424/Del/2024
Ankush Goel
4
That the appellant craves leave to add any/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.
Facts of the case may be summarised as that the return of income for AY 2021-2022 was filed showing total income of Rs 4,96,830/- , which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter the case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS to examine the issue " Business Purchase" and in persuance thereof statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and duly served upon assessee. The Learned AO concluded that though ample opportunities have been afforded but the assessee failed to explain the reason of discrepancies in the purchase invoices as pointed out in the show cause notice (SCN) and made addition in question. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed appeal which is dismissed in limine by stated that the assessee didn't enclosed the grounds of appeal with Form no. 35. 3. Heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record 4 In the course of hearing, the learned AR submitted that the appellant was issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 28.06.2022 and show cause notice u/s 143(3) of the Act has been provided less than 48 hours which is clear cut violation of the ITA No.- 1424/Del/2024
Ankush Goel
5
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of faceless procedures and accordingly prayed for remanding back for denovo adjudication.
5. It is further submitted that show cause notice (SCN) issued on dated 19-12-2022 with the direction to submit response by 18:00
hours of 21-12-2022 and it is in contravention of standard operating procedures (SOP) as mentioned hereinbefore.
6. The Learned Sr DR expressed no objection if matter be remitted back to Learned AO for denovo adjudication as prayed.
7. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the humble opinion that justice should not only be done but it appears to be done and for ensuring the principal of natural justice order to achieve the noble goal of justice and whatever it is, if one more opportunity provided to assessee /appellant, object of justice will be served to some extent. Thus, for this purpose, we are inclined to remit back the matter to Ld. AO with the direction to decide afresh.
8. Consequently, matter is remitting back to the Ld. AO with the direction to decide the matter afresh after affording more effective, meaningful and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, assessee / appellant shall co-operate
ITA No.- 1424/Del/2024
Ankush Goel
6
in proceedings and will not seek unnecessary adjournments for ensuring expeditious disposal of the matter. Assessee / appellant is at liberty to file / submit any documents / evidence etc. in support of his claim.
9. Appeal is allowed as indicated above for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01.04.2025. (SHAMIM YAHYA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 01/04/2025
NEHA, Sr. PS