Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal arose from an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) relating to assessment year 2017-18. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) wrongly upheld an addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act, based on a misconception of facts and provisions, and also wrongly rejected additional evidence.
Held
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, noting that no effective opportunity of hearing was provided. The issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and with directions for proper cooperation.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition without considering additional evidence, and whether the assessee was denied natural justice.
Sections Cited
68, 115BBE, 133(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’’ : NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI MA HAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Chandra Auto Engineers (P) Ltd., VS. ITO , WARD 6(1), C/o Kansal Singla and Associates, CR Building, New Delhi SCO 80-81, 3rd floor, Sector-17C, Chandigarh (PAN: AAACC0039J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17.03.2025 relating to assessment year 2017-18.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice, thus, I am proceeding exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.
It was the contention of the assessee that Ld. CIT(A) wrongly upheld the addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act, which is based on complete misconception of the facts and on mis-appreciation of the provisions of the Act. It was the further contention that Ld. CIT(A) wrongly upheld the exparte order of the AO before against the principle of natural justice and Ld. CIT(A) wrongly rejected the additional evidences submitted before him during the appellate proceedings and also rejected the submissions furnished by the assessee by merely relying on the statement recorded u/s. 133(6) of the two parties out of total 37 parties from whom advances were received by the Assessee. It was further contended that addition was wrongly made u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. I note that ld. CIT(A) in his order has noted that “it was submitted by the AO that the assessee has not submitted any additional evidence / document which required for verification u/R 46A of the I.T,. Rules, 1962 and all the documents submitted by the assessee were already considered during assessment proceedings and made part of assessment order, no verification are made by the undersigned and remand report is submitted for kind consideration.” However, on record, an application dated 3.9.2025 for acceptance of additional evidences in the instant case has been filed having page numbers from 55 to 167, stating therein that since no effective opportunity of hearing was provided, the appellant could not place on record certain documents which are crucial for the proper adjudication of the case. 3.1 In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, I admit the aforesaid additional evidences and remit back the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same afresh, keeping in mind the judgement of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT in WP(MD) no. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.). 2 | P a g e Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. I hold and direct accordingly. However, the assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings in order to canvass its case properly.