FIROZALI TAHERALI CHUDIWALA,FATIMA NAGAR, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 14(1), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Act as it lacked proper discussion and reasoning. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2016-17. The AO made additions on account of unexplained investments under Section 69, as the assessee failed to provide supporting details for claimed exemptions. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's ex-parte order without proper adjudication.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the AO's ex-parte order without proper adjudication and whether the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(38) was adequately considered.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 10(38),Section 148,Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :
This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 05-07-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2016-17.
The assessee raised two grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the order of AO ex-parte of the assessee.
Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee is an individual and no return of income filed for the year under consideration. According to the AO, as per the data available in the AIMS module under Multiyear NMS (Non filer Management System), the assessee entered into the transactions to an extent of Rs.3,26,90,450/- the details of which are reflected in pages 2 and 3 of the assessment order. In view of the said transactions, by recoding reasons and taking prior approval of the Competent Authority, the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. No return was filed in response to the said notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Thereafter, a show cause notice issued by giving reasons as reflected in para 3 of the assessment order, in response to which the assessee submitted reply by claiming exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act. According to the AO no details of bank statement filed supporting the investments and accordingly made addition on account of unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act, chargeable to tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act vide order dated 29-03-2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act. Having aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi. We note that the NFAC, Delhi issued two notices, but no response ever filed by the assessee. Thus, the NFAC, Delhi proceeded to confirm the order of AO in the absence of assessee.
As discussed above, there was no discussion made by the NFAC, Delhi, on merits, but however, simply confirmed the order of AO ex-parte of the assessee which is against the statutory provisions contemplated under sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. The sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act explains that the order of Commissioner (Appeal) shall be in writing stating points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision in disposing of the appeal, but however, no discussion whatsoever made by the NFAC, Delhi as it is evident from the impugned order. Since, the addition made u/s. 69 of the Act, in our opinion, assistance of assessee is required, therefore, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of NFAC, Delhi for its fresh adjudication. The assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of its claim. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the NFAC, Delhi, in case of any failure, NFAC, Delhi is liberty to dispose off the appeal of assessee as contemplated under sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2024.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026