SARITA CHAUDHARY,GREATER NOIDA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)-NFAC did not adjudicate the assessee's legal grounds and merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal is restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 concerns an addition of Rs. 1,04,34,388/- as bogus commission receipts, made after initiating reassessment proceedings. The assessee could not appear before the CIT(A)-NFAC due to communication gaps.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A)-NFAC properly adjudicated the appeal by framing points of determination and providing a speaking discussion, and whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present her case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, 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/250/2023-24/106030725(1) dated 31.01.2024 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
We find during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have added an amount of Rs.1,04,34,388/- as assessee’s alleged bogus commission receipts after initiating section 148/147 proceedings in assessment dated 25th March, 2022, which stands upheld in the CIT(A)-NFAC’s lower appellate findings underchallenge.
Learned counsel submits that the assessee could not appear in the lower appellate proceedings on account of communication gap(s) between her auditor and the arguing counsel. And that learned lower appellate authority has also not adjudicated assessee’s various legal grounds going to the root of the matter as well as on merits, which violates section 250(6) of the Act requiring it to frame points of determination followed a speaking discussion thereupon. 5. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that the impugned addition has been non-cooperative all along. The fact remains that the impugned lower appellate discussion has not examined her case in light of section 250(6) of the Act, as indicated in preceding paras.
We accordingly restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for its afresh appropriate adjudication subject to a rider that she shall plead and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities, at her own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026