BAIJUNDA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD.,NOIDA V. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), NOIDA

ITA 997/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Baijunda Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the Appellant, contesting an ex-parte assessment order passed by the A.O. under sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The Appellant's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, and the application for admission of additional evidence was rejected. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the circumstances, particularly the ex-parte nature of the initial assessment, decided to remand the case back to the A.O. for a fresh assessment, allowing the Appellant to present additional evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772555 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 997/Del/2025 Baijunda Electroncis Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 997/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) Baijunda Electronics Pvt. Ltd. B-5, Sector 065 Gautam Buddha Nagar Noida-201301 PAN: AAHCB053IH Vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)(1) G. B. Nagar Noida Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv Revenue by Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/08/2025 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), dated 25/01/2025for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. An ex-parte assessment order came to be passed on 18/12/2022 u/s 144 r. w. Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making certain additions. The Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the assessment order dated 18/12/2022. The Assessee has also filed an application before the Ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) after obtaining the Remand Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 997/Del/2025 Baijunda Electroncis Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Report from the A.O., rejected the application for admission of additional documents and dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 25/01/2025, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted the assessment order has been passed ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Rules. Thus, submitted that the orders impugned of the Lower Authorities are in violation of principals of natural justice. Therefore, sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative submitted that the Assessee has not appeared before the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) after calling for the Remand Report from the A.O., rightly rejected the application for admission of additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Rules and further submitted that there is no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the Appeal of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee could not appear before the A.O. and produce any documents during the assessment proceedings, which resulted in passing the Best Judgment u/s 144 of the Act. The Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 997/Del/2025 Baijunda Electroncis Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Assessee filed Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and also filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the Application and ultimately dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. In our considered opinion, considering the fact that the assessment has been framed ex-parte, the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted additional evidence filed under Rule 46A of the Rules. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in rejecting the application for admission of additional evidence. 6. In view of the fact that, the assessment has been framed ex-parte, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the A.O. with a liberty to the Assessee to produce all/any documents to substantiate the claim of the Assessee and the A.O. is directed to consider the documents produced by the Assessee and frame the assessment afresh. Needless to say, the Assessee shall be provided opportunity of being heard. Ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, the Appeal of the Appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 27 .08.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 997/Del/2025 Baijunda Electroncis Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "