Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged a CIT(A)-NFAC ex-parte order, passed under section 144, which affirmed an addition of Rs. 14,95,500/- under section 69A for cash deposits made during demonetization for A.Y. 2017-18. The CIT(A) order was criticized for lacking detailed adjudication and points of determination.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with the requirements of section 250(6) regarding detailed adjudication. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication, with the condition that the assessee actively presents their case within three opportunities.
Key Issues
Whether a CIT(A) can pass an ex-parte order affirming an addition under Section 69A without proper adjudication and framing points of determination as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 69A, Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gireesh Aggarwal HUF, Vs. ITO, B-3/86, 3rd Floor, Ward -34(4), Ashok Vihar, PH-2, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :AADHG7258P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Raman Kumar Goel, CA Sh. Shrey Goel, Adv. Department by Sh. Yogesh Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 07.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 29.11.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, 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/250/2024-25/1065039104(1) dated 21.05.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)- NFAC’s impugned ex-parte lower appellate order “affirming assessment findings” dated 23.12.2019 making section 69A addition of Rs.14,95,500/- representing assessee’s cash deposits made during demonetization; has neither framed any points of determination nor I find any detailed adjudication thereupon, as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act.
Faced with this situation, Revenue vehemently argues that the assessee had not put in appearance before the CIT(A)-NFAC in the lower appellate proceedings and therefore the tribunal ought to uphold the impugned addition.
I am of the considered view in these peculiar facts and circumstances that be it ex-parte order or passed after hearing the appellant concerned, there is no exception to the foregoing compliance to section 250(6) of the Act. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore assessee’s appeal back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for its afresh adjudication as per law, subject to a rider that the assessee shall positively plead and prove his case within three effective opportunities at his own risk and responsibility.
All other issues raised in the instant appeal stand rendered academic at this stage.