Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)/NFAC's ex-parte order, which upheld additions of Rs.61,00,000/- and Rs.1,40,69,778/- under Section 68 and Rs.23,11,000/- under Section 69A, both read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) had confirmed these additions without framing points of determination or issuing a speaking decision.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking adjudication that violated the statutory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, as it neither framed points of determination nor provided a reasoned decision. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh, appropriate adjudication, subject to the appellant proving all relevant facts within three effective opportunities.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding additions under sections 68 and 69A/115BBE through an ex-parte, non-speaking order that lacked framed points of determination, thereby violating the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 69A, Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057415817 (1) dated 26.10.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s ex-parte lower appellate discussion inter alia upholding assessment findings dated 27.12.2019 inter alia making section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE additions of unexplained cash credit amounting to Rs.61,00,000/- and Rs.1,40,69,778/- followed by section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE addition of Rs.23,11,000/-; respectively, has neither framed any points of 2 Shubham Bansal determination nor do we find any speaking decision thereupon, as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act.
Faced with this situation, Mr. Bansal vehemently argues in light of the lower appellate discussion in para 4 that the assessee had indeed been afforded adequate opportunities of hearing and the impugned additions have been upheld due to his failure to explain source of the foregoing cash deposits. Be that it may, the fact remains that the learned CIT(A)’s has proceeded to confirm the impugned additions in his totally non- speaking adjudication in para 5.2.9 at pages 5 to 6 thereby violating the foregoing statutory provision. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication as per law subject to a rider that the appellant shall plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/12/2024.