Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company's assessment was completed ex-parte under Section 144, with an addition of Rs. 2,35,50,000 under Section 68 for unsecured loans. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without adequate opportunity for the Assessing Officer to examine it. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a detailed examination.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions by admitting additional evidence without proper verification by the AO and whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity.
Sections Cited
144, 68, 147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
(ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14) Income Tax Officer, Baba Vishwakarma Ward-4(1), Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Vs. G-3, Karampura, New Delhi-110015 PAN-AABCB4897N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 10/10/2025 O R D E R
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A), in short] dated 10.08.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-2/10110/2017-18 arising out of order passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) dated 22.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of hearing, the assessee has not submitted the requisite details, therefore, the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.2,35,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Against such order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order ITO vs. Baba Vishwakarma Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. dated 10.08.2023 allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions made by AO. Against the said order, the revenue has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:
“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ed. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,35,50,000/- made by AO on account of unsecured loans received during the AY without appreciating the facts that the assessee was given ample opportunities to produce the documents/evidences for providing identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of unsecured loans but the assessee failed to do so.
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.2,35,50,000/- made by AO on account of unsecured loans received from one of the shareholder viz. Savita Kamboj considering the additional documents/evidences produced by the assessee during the appeal proceedings.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”
3. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT- DR supports the orders of the AO and submit that assessee has failed to file any details about the loans to establish its identity, genuineness and creditworthiness. He further submits that before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed details wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs.2,20,64,000/- were received from one Mrs. Savita Kambojh on various dates which were utilized for making payments to the suppliers who were in dire need of funds and issuing notices to the assessee for making payments. Therefore, the repayment was made to Mrs. Savita Kambhojh by taking loan from the Director Sh. Jugal Kishore Kambojh in the month of February, March which is tabulated at page 8 & 9 of the appellate order. As per the said table total sum of Rs.2,20,50,000/- were paid on various dates to Smt. Savita Kambojh for which it is explained that a sum of Rs.1,95,50,000/- were received from Sh. Jugal Kishore Kambojh and the balance was assessee’s own funds. Ld. AR DR further submits that before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has filed the details of the sale deed to establish the ITO vs. Baba Vishwakarma Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. sources in the hands of the Smt. Savita Kambhojh and further submits the bank statement and financial statement etc. of Shri Jugal Kishore Kambhoj which were sent to the AO for a remand report. In remand report as reproduced in para 6 at pages 22 to 24 of the appellate order, it is observed by the AO that the assessee company has failed to justify the creditworthiness of the Jugal Kambojh. However, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions. Ld. SR DR, therefore, prayed for the confirmation of the additions made by the AO.
4. Heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the materials available on record. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. From the copy of the order sheet, it is seen that out of total 10 hearings taking place, on 3 occasions one Sh. Bhimanshu Kansal, Advocate appeared and sought adjournment, however on the remaining occasions, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is further seen that no details whatsoever were filed by the assessee. It is further seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions by admitting the additional evidences though the same were not examined by the Assessing Officer who in the remand report has objected the admission of the same and no comments were made on the merits of the evidences filed as the AO has not examined these details.
5. In view of these facts, in our considered opinion, an opportunity should be provided to the assessee to examine the details filed by the Assessee before the ld. CIT(A) as additional evidences as the assessment order was passed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. It is further seen that these facts were stated by AO before the Ld. CIT(A) in the remand report and an objection was raised by AO towards the admission of these evidences however, ld. CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidences and without providing adequate opportunity to the AO for examination/ verification of the said details, deleted the additions so made.
ITO vs. Baba Vishwakarma Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and send back to the issue to the file of AO for making detail examination of the creditworthiness of the lenders and decide in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to participate the assessment proceedings and submits the relevant details. With these directions, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.10.2025.