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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2910/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 September 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have decided the appeal on merit as per Section 250 of the Act. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal restored the issue to the NFAC to grant one final opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2021-22 declaring a loss. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 11,01,72,008/-, assessing income at that amount. The assessee appealed to the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and whether principles of natural justice were violated due to short notice periods.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69C,Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. M. BALAGANESH & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate
Hearing: 02/09/2025Pronounced: 19/09/2025

Implex Infrastructure Pvt.ltd. Delhi vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITANo.2910/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Implex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO Ward12(1) Delhi c/o C.S. Anand , Advocate, B-81 First Floor (PartB), Defence Colony Bhishma Pitamah Marg New Delhi- 110024 Pan No. AADCI1104M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. C.S. Anand, Advocate Ms. Vaishnavi Yadav, Advocate Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu CIT DR Date of hearing: 02/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19/09/2025 ORDER 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 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 3

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →