ANIL KUMAR CHAUHAN,GURGAON V. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

ITA 4840/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anil Kumar Chauhan, the appellant, contesting an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which pertained to the Assessment Year 2019-20. The primary contention arose from ex-parte additions made by the AO amounting to Rs. 7,17,35,323 under sections 68 and 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's absence during initial proceedings led to these additions being made based on available records. The CIT(A) later dismissed the appeal, not admitting additional evidences under Rule 46A, which prompted the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately analyzed the facts and thus remitted the case back to the AO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669353 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: TIN box 249 ITR 216
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Bogus Share capital
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4840/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Anil Kumar Chauhan, 122, Sanjay Gram, Sector 14, Gurgaon Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AIYPK4960B Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 27/06/2025 O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the \"(Ld. NFAC\"] dated 21.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The word Act hereinafter in this order shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee was called absent in this case. The ld DR submitted that the ld AO has made an ex-parte addition in this case while making the addition of Rs. 7,17,35,323/- u/s 68 and u/s 40a(i)(a) of the Act. The ld DR submitted that as per para 3 of AOs order the Assessee had remained non responsive to AOs notices and hence, the assessment was completed on the basis of the material contemporaneously available on records. It was ITA No. 4840/Del/2024 Anil Kumar Chauhan Page | 2 argued that the ld CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on the issue of non admission of additional evidences. 3. We have heard rival submissions in the light of the materials available on the record. We have noted that the Assessee had not complied with the notices of the ld AO at the assessment proceedings. However, before the ld CIT(A) the Assessee had requested for admission of additional evidences within the meanings of Rule 46A. The ld CIT(A) referred the matter for submission of a remand report in which the ld AO contested the admission of additional evidences. The ld CIT(A) concurred with the ld AO to conclude that there was no reasonable cause available with the Assessee for non submission of requested evidences before the ld AO and he choose to reject the request for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A. The ld CIT(A) choose to adjudicate the appeal on merits without considering the evidences produced by the Assessee and partly allowed the Assessee’s appeal. 4. We have considered the arguments of the ld CIT(A) given in para 6.4 to 6.7 of his order while rejecting the admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A. It has been noted that the arguments are largely based upon conjectures and surmises and not supported by any demonstrative facts on records. We are conscious that no appellant benefits by non prosecution of his case. We have also noted that the conclusion arrived at ld CIT(A) while adjudicating grounds of appeal raised before him without considering any evidences are void ab initio. In the absence of any evidence and it is the ld AO had made one sided addition. By not admitting ITA No. 4840/Del/2024 Anil Kumar Chauhan Page | 3 the Assessee ‘s evidences and confirming the same, the ld CIT(A) has also committed the same irregularity. Adequate opportunity of being heard is natural right of every litigant and cannot be violated under any circumstances. 5. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter qua addition made u/s 68 and 40a(ia) of the Act have not been objectively and comprehensively analyzed by the lower authorities. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and filed supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possesses the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. Without prejudice it has also been noted that in this case the Ld. AO did not have adequate opportunities to examine the varied facts seminal therein. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the issue of addition qua unexplained share capital which have been contested by the assessee through its grounds of appeal supra stands remitted back to the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication de novo by passing a speaking order and in accordance with law. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any ITA No. 4840/Del/2024 Anil Kumar Chauhan Page | 4 non-compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the readjudication proceedings. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/06/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (AMITABH SHUKLA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27/06/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi "