Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314439 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
05-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Judgement Text
" INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6076/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Akasaki Technology Private Limited, 13/32, Rivera Basement Shop Nos.20-21, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi PIN 1100 05 PAN No. AAGCA0799R Vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by the appellant/assessee is against order dated 25.10.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income- Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) arising out of assessment order dated 24.12.2019 under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) of the Assessee by: Shri Manjeet Sahni, CA Department by: Shri Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 05.05.2025 Date of pronouncement: 05.05.2025 ITA No.6076/Del/2024 2 ACIT, Central Circle 2(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO”) for assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are appellant/assessee, a private limited company, filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.48,51,840/- on 28.09.2012. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Act after recording satisfaction and reasons for reopening and obtaining necessary approval from competent authority. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was duly served on 30.03.2019 through ITBP portal. In response thereto, assessee company filed letter dated 26.04.2019 demanding reasons for reopening of the case which were given on 09.09.2019. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to assessee to give final opportunity. The assessee failed to file any reply. Ld. AO vide order dated 24.12.2019, made addition of Rs.8,38,50,800/-. 3. Against order dated 24.12.2019, appellant/assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Through order dated 25.10.2024, Ld. CIT(A) set aside order dated 24.12.2019 with the directions to the Ld. AO to frame the assessment order afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant/assessee. ITA No.6076/Del/2024 3 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee filed present appeal. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside assessment order of Ld. AO passed under Section 144/147 of the Act notwithstanding the fact that appellant/assessee had made a specific request vide his submissions that the appeal be adjudicated post-submission of the Remand Report by the Ld. AO and after granting an opportunity to the appellant/assessee to file a rejoinder. Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the order of assessment and restored the matter back to the file of Ld. AO with the directions for fresh adjudication thereby granting an opportunity for second inning to the Ld. AO to remove the infirmities in the assessment order that was a nullity, void ab initio. Ld. AO had failed to issue mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating the detailed submissions duly corroborated and substantiated with cogent documentary evidences made by the appellant/assessee which negated the adverse inference drawn and contentions of the Ld. AO that form the basis of addition of Rs.8,38,50,800/- to the total income of the appellant/assessee on account of ITA No.6076/Del/2024 4 payments made to its supplier M/s. Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd. purportedly as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act, whereas, requiring the appellant to show-cause-notice vide notice dated 23.12.2019 as to why the amount of Rs.8,38,50,800/- which was supposedly credited in the assessee’s bank account be not added back to its income under Section 69 of the Act. 6. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submitted that Ld. AO had passed order under Section 144 of the Act considering the fact that appellant/assessee had failed to file the reply to the show-cause-notice. 7. From examination of record in the light of light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that the appellant/assessee failed to file reply. Ld. AO on submissions made by the assessee, during assessment proceedings, passed order dated 24.12.2019 under Section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) in order dated 25.10.2024, as per proviso to section 251, sub- section (1) clause (a) of the Act, set aside the assessment order passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and remand the matter back to the Ld. AO for making fresh assessment. The arguments of Learned Authorised Representative for the ITA No.6076/Del/2024 5 appellant/assessee that the specific request for adjudication of post-submission of remand report is de void of merit because the assessment order under Section 144 of the Act was set aside as per the proviso to section 251 sub-section (1) sub-clause (a) of the Act. The argument of fresh adjudication granting second inning is de void of merit because Ld. AO has to pass a fresh order by considering all facts including non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act and examination of other documentary evidences. Accordingly, impugned order is upheld. Ground of appeal nos. 1 to 3 are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/05/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07/05/2025 Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to - 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR "
AI Insights
Akasaki Technology Private Limited appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) which had set aside the original assessment order made under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment had added a substantial amount of Rs.8,38,50,800 to the assessee's income, which was contested. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural aspects of the assessment and the opportunities provided to the assessee to present their case. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of all relevant facts and compliance with procedural requirements.
