NEETU,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(1), FARIDABAD, HARYANA, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1230/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 December 2024AY 2021-22Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not provided with proper opportunity by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared an income of Rs. 8,86,650/-, but the assessment was finalized at Rs. 3,21,31,300/- after additions for alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance despite opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding additions for alleged bogus purchases without appreciating evidence and whether proper opportunity was provided to the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SMT RENU JAUHRI

1.

This appeal for the Assessment Year (hereinafter, the ‘AY’) 2021-22 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, New Delhi [hereinafter, the ‘CIT(A) ’].

2.

Following grounds are raised in this appeal: -

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order of the assessing officer with respect to addition of Rs. 3,01,34,118/-, being 25% of the alleged bogus purchase without appreciating the evidence filed on record.

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order of the assessing officer with respect to addition of Rs. 11,10,532/-, being 100% of the alleged bogus purchase with Mr. Raju merely due to his denial of the transaction.

3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice to any other ground, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to note that only the profit element can be added in a case of alleged bogus purchase.

4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any ground during the course of the proceeding.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income on 10.02.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 8,86,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was finalized at an income of Rs. 3,21,31,300/- after making addition of Rs. 3,01,34,118/- being 25% of bogus purchases as well as Rs. 11,10,532/- on account of 100% of bogus purchases from one party which denied the transaction.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2024 as the assessee did not file any details in support of her claim despite several opportunities given by the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Aggrieved with the dismissal, the assessee is in appeal before us.

Ld. AR has submitted that proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee by Ld. CIT(A) and therefore prayed for remitting the case back for fresh adjudication. Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 12th December, 2024

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →