ANUJ KUMAR,NEW DELHI V. ITO,WARD-2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

ITA 363/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anuj Kumar, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A)/NFAC), which had made a substantial addition of Rs. 30,76,61,569 on account of bogus purchases for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The appellant's return of income for the Assessment Year 2020-21 was scrutinized under CASS due to substantial purchases from suppliers who were either non-filers or had filed non-business ITRs. The A.O. framed the assessment after the appellant failed to comply with notices under section 142(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) also passed an ex-parte order due to the appellant's non-appearance. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not decide all the grounds of appeal on their merits and thus restored the matter to the A.O. for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712254 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA SWAROOP
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJ KUMAR; SURAJ
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 363/Del/2025 Anuj Kumar Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [DELHI BENCH: “ B” New Delhi] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 363/DEL/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Anuj Kumar Mugalpura-2, Khurja, Bulandshahr-203131 U.P. C/o. M/s Raj Kumar & Associates, L-7(LGF), South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi PAN: BFRPK7137P Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3) (1) Bulandshahr, U.P. (JAO), Asstt. Unit (NFAC) (Asstt. Frmad by NFAC) Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Raj Kumar, CA and Shri Suraj, Adv Revenue by Ms.PoojaSwaroop, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 20/12/2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 at Rs. 5,20,300/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason “substantial purchases from suppliers who are either Non Filer(s) or have filed non- business ITR (ITR 1, 2) or reflected a substantially lower turnover in ITR”. During the assessment proceedings, though the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 363/Del/2025 Anuj Kumar Vs. ITO Assessee has replied to initial notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, failed to comply with the subsequent notice and did not submit the requisite documents called by the A.O., therefore, the assessment has been framed on 20/12/2024 by making an addition of Rs. 30,76,61,569/- on account of bogus purchase. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 16/12/2022, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted the Assessee could not get the sufficient opportunity to produce the documents to substantiate his claim before the A.O. and even the Ld. CIT(A) has also passed ex-parte order in a hurried manner without adjudicating all the grounds of Appeal and the order impugned came to be passed in violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee is a chronic defaulter who has not appeared before the Lower Authorities, therefore, both the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have passed the respective orders in accordance with law which requires no interference, thus by relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 363/Del/2025 Anuj Kumar Vs. ITO 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. During the assessment proceedings, though the Assessee has replied to initial notices issued by the A.O., the Assessee has failed to comply with the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 31/10/2022, therefore, A.O. proceeded to frame the assessment. Even during the first appellate proceedings, the Assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) which resulted in passing an ex-parte order which is impugned before us. The Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal on its merits. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. for de-novo assessmentin accordance with law. Needless to say, the A.O. shall provide opportunity for producing requisite documents and the submission to substantiate the claim of the Assessee before passing the assessment order. The Assessee is also directed to participate in assessment proceedings without fail. 6. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th July, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 28 .07.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 363/Del/2025 Anuj Kumar Vs. ITO Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "