Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69C and Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, and disallowed depreciation, due to the assessee's failure to provide sufficient evidence. The assessee also failed to respond to notices issued by the CIT(A), attributing this non-compliance to reliance on a tax consultant. Aggrieved by these additions and denial of opportunity, the assessee appealed to the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal, in the interest of substantive justice, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. A token cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Legal Services Authority (Legal Aid Cell).
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO under Section 69C and Section 69, and the disallowance of depreciation, were justified given the assessee's claim of lack of opportunity to present evidence, and whether the case should be remanded for fresh assessment.
Sections Cited
250, 69C, 69
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI
Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 18.12.2025 18.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 06.06.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC, Delhi. In this case the Ld. AO had added Rs.75,46,546/- u/s 69C of the Act, Rs.13,41,613/- u/s 69 of the Act and has made an addition on account of disallowance of depreciation at Rs.1,00,620/-. All these additions have been made on account of a recording of fact that the assessee could not submit sufficient evidence in support of his claims.
1.1 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not succeed mainly on account of the fact that four notices issued from the office of Ld. CIT(A) were not responded to (pages 3 & 4 of the impugned order).
1.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee approached the ITAT with grounds which challenge the action of Ld. AO and also grounds challenging the denial of opportunity.
Before us, the Ld. AR prayed that the assessee may be given one more chance to present the facts before the Ld. AO since adequate presentation could not be made before the authorities below. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee was totally dependent on his tax consultant for pursuing the matters before the authorities below and due to this total dependence on the tax consultant, the assessee has suffered the additions. On a query form the Bench regarding the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) and the responsibility of the assessee in ensuring that tax matters were persued with due diligence, the Ld. AR assured that in future the assessee would be more careful.
2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the documents before us and have also heard the Ld. AR/DR. It is evident that bald statements concerning the reason for less than enthusiastic persuasion before the authorities below cannot help the assessee. However, in the interest of substantive justice, we 2 deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this issue back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment.
3.1 Considering that substantial time and resources have been expended by the Revenue Authorities in dealing with these matters, a token cost of Rs.5,000/- is hereby imposed on the assessee. This amount has to be deposited in the Punjab & Haryana High Court Legal Services Authority (Legal Aid Cell), by 31.01.2026.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2025