Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 3,12,80,000/- made under section 68 for unexplained cash credit, which had been confirmed by the CIT(A)-NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal arose from proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Held
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)-NFAC failed to address the Revenue's factual matrix and did not frame points of determination as mandated by section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the case was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh and appropriate adjudication, with the assessee to be given three effective opportunities to present its claim.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)-NFAC erred in upholding the Section 68 unexplained cash credit addition without following the procedural requirements of Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly regarding framing points of determination and detailed adjudication.
Sections Cited
Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 143(3), Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 68, Income-tax Act, 1961 - Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
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/250/2023-24/1061597685(1), dated 27.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appeared at the behest of the assessee. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte against him.
Coming to the assessee’s four substantive grounds that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law on his part in making section 68 unexplained cash credit addition amounting to Rs.3,12,80,000/- in course of assessment, dated 28.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate order.
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from Revenue side that the CIT(A)-NFAC has nowhere dealt with the Revenue’s factual matrix as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act requiring it to frame points of determination followed a detailed adjudication thereupon. 5. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore the instant appeal back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for its fresh and appropriate adjudication within 3 effective opportunities subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove its claim at his own risk and responsibilities in consequential proceedings. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.