IMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-12(1), DELHI

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

This appeal by assessee is preferred against the order of National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(Ld. NFAC”] dated 18.03.2025 arising out of the assessment order of the AO dated 26-12-2022 under section 143(3) of Implex Infrastructure Pvt.ltd. Delhi vs. ITO the Income tax Act 1961,(in short “the Act”),for Assessment Year 2021-
22. 2 .The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal:
1. On the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)
/NFAC ought to have quashed the assessment order because the principals of natural justice were violated (in as much as, time of just 3 days was allowed to respond to the notice dt. 07-
12-2022 and time of just 4 days was allowed to respond to the show cause notice dt. 15-12-2022 ).
2. On the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)
/NFAC ought to have held that the view formed by the learned
FAO relating to purchases reported under GSTR-1( On the basis of which, the addition of Rs. 11,01,72,008/- was made u/s 69 C
) was untenable.
3. On the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A)
/NFAC ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 11,01,72,008/- which had been made by the learned AO u/s 69 while presuming that the reported purchases from 25 parties (as per the list appearing in tabular form on page 8 &9 of the assessment order ) were actually made by the assessee and further that such purchases were not recorded by the assessee in its books of accounts.
4. The learned CIT(A)/NFAC ought not to have dismissed the assesee’s appeal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the A.Y.2021-22 on 30-03-2022
declaring total loss of Rs. 35,83,872/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued. The Assessing officer completed the assessment and assessed the income at Rs. 11,01,72,008/- Aggrieved the order of the Assessing officer preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide its order dated
18-03-2025 dismissed the appeal against which the assesse is in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee did not appear before the Ld. NFAC and exparte order was passed by the Ld. NFAC.
He further submitted that the assessee was not aware about the notices u/s250 of the Act, because Sh. Harender Khokhar has provided the email ID and mobile number in appeal format. Due to serious dispute Sh. Harender Khokhar has never informed about the notices, for this reasons the assessee could not attend the appellate proceedings.
5.The Ld. Departmental representative (DR) pointed out that the assessee did not appear before the Ld. NFAC after filing the appeal .
The appeal was rightly rejected.
6.We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Since in the instant case the assesse has failed to file his submission after availing the various opportunity. The assessee did not appear before the Ld.
NFAC. The Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The Implex Infrastructure Pvt.ltd. Delhi vs. ITO

Ld. NFAC should have decided the appeal on merit as per the provision of the section 250 of the Act. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the NFAC and co-operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 19-09-2025. (M. BALAGANESH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

*SR BHATNAGGAR*
Date:- 19.09.2025