SAZID ALI KHAN,DELHI vs. NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2603/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 December 2024AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not address the assessee's facts on merits and failed to comply with Section 250(6) of the Act regarding framing points of determination and detailed adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh re-adjudication, stipulating that the assessee must present and prove its case within three effective opportunities.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal is against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14, which upheld additions of Rs. 13,98,12,700/- under Section 69C (unexplained expenditure) and Rs. 1,78,50,000/- under Section 68 (unexplained cash credit), made during proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in law and facts by failing to frame points of determination and provide a speaking adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) committed a procedural error by not framing points of determination and providing a speaking adjudication under Section 250(6) in upholding additions under Sections 69C and 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69C,Section 68,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

For Respondent: Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Hearing: 10.12.2024Pronounced: 20.12.2024

Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sazid Ali Khan, Vs NFAC, 608, Navniti Apartment, IP Delhi Extension, Patparganj, New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADLPK3001B Assessee by : Sh. Aditi Ahmera, Proxy Counsel Revenue by : Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 20.12.2024 ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062377576 (1) dated 11.03.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Learned counsel submits during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC herein has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Assessing Officer’s action inter alia making section 69C unexplained expenditure and section 68 unexplained cash credit additions of Rs. 13,98,12,700/- and Rs.1,78,50,000/- in the course of assessment dated 26.03.2022. And that too, the impugned lower appellate 2 Sazid Ali Khan discussion has neither framed any points of determination nor there is any speaking adjudication thereof as per the facts emerging from the case file. The department on the other hand has drawn strong support from the lower appellate findings upholding the impugned addition.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival submissions. We find only part merit in the assessee’s submission at this stage to the limited extent that as per the facts emerging from the case file at page 2, the assessee was given two opportunities of hearing on 05.12.2023 and 07.02.2024 and therefore, possibility of some communication gaps at various levels could not be altogether ruled out. We also prima facie note that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has not dealt with the assessee’s relevant facts on merits as well so as to comply with section 250(6) of the Act requiring him to frame points of determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Be that as it may be, we are of the considered view that in the larger interest of justice the CIT(A)/NFAC needs to re-adjudicate the assessee’s lower appeal, afresh subject to a rider that he shall himself plead and prove his case in consequential proceedings within three effective opportunities at his own risk and responsibility. Ordered accordingly.

5.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic at this stage.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →