Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals before the ITAT against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The first appeal, ITA No. 2056/M/2024, was dismissed as duplicate. The second appeal, ITA No. 2090/M/2024, raised substantive grounds challenging additions made under Section 69 and Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not properly considered the merits of the assessee's grievances concerning the additions made under Section 69 and Section 56(2). The tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore these grounds to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC properly adjudicated the assessee's grounds regarding additions under Section 69 and Section 56(2) and provided adequate opportunity of being heard. Whether the first appeal was redundant.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 69, 56(2), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA No.2056&2090/M/ 2024 for assessment year 2017-18 arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s very order DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061283797(1) dated Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee’s former appeal herein be dismissed as not pressed being “duplicate” in nature. Ordered accordingly.
Next comes the assessee’s latter appeal raising the following substantive grounds:
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ["the CIT(A)"] erred in law in dismissing the appeal without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant against the principal of natural justice.
2. The learned CIT (A) further erred in law & on the facts in determining that the appellant is not aggrieved with the reassessment order disregarding the submissions & the documentary evidences placed on record by the appellant.
3. The learned CIT (A) further erred in law & on the facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 18,53,588/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") without giving any cogent reasons.
4. The learned CIT (A) further erred in law & on the facts in confirming the addition of Rs.57,32,0000/- u/s 56(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") without giving any cogent reasons.
5. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s impugned lower appellate order herein has nowhere considered merits of the assessee’s sole substantive grievance seeking to reverse section 69 addition(s) of Rs.18,53,588/- and u/s 56(2) to the tune of Rs.57,32,000/-, made in the course of assessment dated 18.05.2023, by either framing the points of adjudication or a detailed adjudication thereupon, as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act.
Learned counsel Mr. Manish Ajudiya at this stage invited our attention to page No.13 in the lower appellate discussion that the CIT(A) had indeed afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessee which the latter failed to avail. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical argument once the CIT(A) has not even dealt with the relevant factual matrix of the assessee’s pleadings as indicated in preceding paras. We accordingly deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant twin substantive grounds back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.
To sum up, the assessee’s former appeal is dismissed and his latter case ITA No.2090/M/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.07.2024.