Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13, which affirmed an addition of Rs. 33,53,511/- under Section 69A as unexplained money. The appeal contended that the CIT(A) failed to frame proper points of determination or provide detailed adjudication as required by Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee was absent during the hearing before the tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) by not framing points of determination or providing a detailed adjudication for the Section 69A addition. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the condition that the taxpayer proves all relevant facts within three opportunities.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) validly confirmed the Section 69A addition of unexplained money without complying with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, particularly regarding the framing of points of determination and detailed adjudication.
Sections Cited
144, 69A, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI (SMC
Date of hearing 23.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”],Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061961690(1) dated 04.03.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Cases called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. I accordingly proceeded ex parte against the appellant.
It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing with able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A) has affirmed assessing officer’s action making section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs.33,53,511/- in the course of assessment framed on 20.12.2019, without either framing points of determination or any detailed adjudication thereupon, as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act.
Faced with this situation, Mr. Bansal vehemently argues that the assessee had indeed been afforded adequate opportunities in both the lower proceedings. He could hardly rebut that foregoing failure of compliance to the above statutory provision is de hors assessee’s cooperation in lower appellate proceedings. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(A) for his fresh adjudication in compliance of section 250(6) with the rider that the taxpayer shall submit and prove all the relevant facts at his risk and responsibility; within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.