INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR vs. SECURE 1 SERVICES PVT. LTD., JALANDHAR
Facts
The assessee company, engaged in security services, did not file a return. The AO initiated proceedings based on information of Rs. 3.26 crores in receipts and Rs. 5.28 crores in TDS, completing an ex-parte assessment at Rs. 5.28 crores. The CIT(A) admitted fresh evidence (financial statements) from the assessee and deleted the addition, directing the AO to tax only the profit element.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's repeated non-appearance and the revenue's grievance regarding the CIT(A) admitting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A. Given the lack of representation from the assessee, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the case on merits based on available records and arguments from the DR.
Key Issues
The key legal issue is whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence (financial statements) in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962, without proper justification, leading to the deletion of the ex-parte assessment made by the AO.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 250, Section 194C, Section 248(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC,
Delhi dated 07.02.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has
emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 147
r.w.s. 144 of the Act, 1961.
There is no appearance by the assesee or his counsel in spite of repeated calls
neither in physical mode nor in virtual. No adjournment application has been filed
either. It is seen from order sheet entries that there has not been any representation by the assessee on previous three occasions on 18th Aug., 2025, 25th Sept., 2025 and 17th
Dec., 2025 even though notices have been issued vide registered post. In absence of
any representation, we proceed to dispose off the case on merits on the basis of
materials available on record and after hearing the ld. DR.
3 I.T.A. No. 247/Asr/2025 & Ors. Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Ors. 3. There are three grounds of appeal taken by the revenue in Form No. 36 and the
main grievance is that the ld. first appellate authority has disposed of the appeal by
admitting fresh evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962.
Brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee company was
engaged in the business of providing security services to various clients and in absence
of any return being filed in regular course, proceedings were initiated u/s 148 on
31.03.2021 (after necessary approval) on the basis of information contained in the
ITBA Module that the assessee company has received an amount of Rs.3.26 cores in
aggregate for providing security services which is further substantiated by TDS
deducted u/s 194C (in Form 26AS), under the head payment to contractor amounting
to Rs. 5.28 crores.
In absence of any response or compliance from the assessee company, in course
of assessment proceedings, to various notices issued by the AO, the assessment was
completed ex-parte on a total income of Rs. 5.28 crores.
In course of appeal before the ld. first appellate authority, the assessee has filed
submissions along with balance-sheet, profit & loss account, bank statement and Form
26AS, where the assessee company has disclosed business receipts totaling Rs. 6.40
cores and has claimed that only the profit arising out of such contract receipts may be
brought to tax and has dispute the action of the AO regarding the estimation of income.
4 I.T.A. No. 247/Asr/2025 & Ors. Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Ors. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has admitted and accepted the said financials and has directed
the AO for deletion of the addition by observing as under:
“Therefore, the action of the AO to tax the gross receipts is not sustainable. The AO is directed to bring to tax; the profit element embedded in the gross receipts of the appellant for the year under consideration. The P & L account and balance sheet are enclosed herewith for ready reference as annexure-1. Therefore, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 5,28,32,238/- is hereby deleted. Accordingly ground no. 05 to 07 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed.”
It has also been brought to notice before the CIT(A) in course of appellate
proceedings by the assessee company that the company has been struck off in pursuant
to sub-section 5 of section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Registrar of
Companies (Form No. STK-7 dated 11.10.2021). However, it is noted that the
reassessment proceedings u/s 148 has been initiated on 31.03.2021 (that is prior to
struck off) which means, the company was very much in existence on the date of issue
of notice u/s 148.
It has been further noted that the A.O. has never been informed about the
company being struck off.
5 I.T.A. No. 247/Asr/2025 & Ors. Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Ors. 10. In course of hearing before the Tribunal, the ld. DR submitted that there has been
a violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules in as much the ld. first appellate authority was
not justified in admitting fresh documentary evidences by way of profit and loss
account, balance-sheet Form 26AS, and other documentary evidences and deleting the
addition, without allowing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the said
documents. As such, he prays that the matter should be remanded back to the AO for
examination of the fresh evidence filed (which will be in terms of Rule 46A).
We have considered the materials on record and we find that the ld. first
appellate authority has issued a direction to the AO for consideration of the
documentary evidences and for determination of the profits embedded in such gross
turnover. We of course are also in agreement with the ld. DR that fresh documentary
evidences cannot be admitted in appeal proceedings, without providing an opportunity
to the AO for examination of the same.
Before we conclude we would like to observe that since the company has been
struck off u/s 248 of the Companies Act 2013, but the tax assessment has commenced
before the struck off date, the companies dissolution does not automatically invalidate
them and liabilities will exist and provisions of section 248(7) of the Companies Act
2013 rws 252 of the said Act for all practical purpose, will operate .
6 I.T.A. No. 247/Asr/2025 & Ors. Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Ors. ITA No. 46/ASR/2025 for Asst. Year: 2013-14
This appeal is filed by the assessee, belatedly by 273 days, and considering the
fact that the company has been struck off the delay in filing of this appeal condones
and the same is admitted for hearing on merits.
In absence of any response before the Ld. First appeal authority the appeal has
been dismissed without adjudication on merits.
The nature of business of the assessee has remained the same and as such we are
of the opinion that the business profits embedded in the gross contract receipts are to
be brought to tax.
Our observation in ITA – 247 / ASR/ 2025 applies mutatis mutandis.
The appeal is remanded back to the AO for de-novo fresh assessment on merits
after allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard.
As such, we set aside the matter back to the files of the Assessing Officer for
fresh assessment de-novo on the basis of materials available on record and to determine
the income afresh as per provisions of law after allowing opportunity of being heard to
the assessee.
We have not expressed any opinion on merits.
7 I.T.A. No. 247/Asr/2025 & Ors. Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Ors. 20. In the result, both the appeals field by the revenue and assessee are allowed for
statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 26.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Krinwant Sahay) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
