BALESH JAIN & SONS HUF,DELHI V. ITO WARD-55(4), DELHI

ITA 2608/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Balesh Jain & Sons HUF, the appellant, contesting an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which confirmed an addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2014-15 and made an addition of Rs. 87,60,348 to the assessee's income, which was contested. The NFAC dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-participation in the proceedings. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's submissions despite multiple opportunities and decided to remand the case back to the NFAC for a thorough examination, providing the assessee a final opportunity to present its case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833863 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE. LEARNED AUTHORIZED; RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Section: 148; 68

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL, MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No.2608/DEL/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Balesh Jain & Sons HUF Sinha & Sinha Law Chambers LLP 108-109 Parmesh Business Centre-1 Plot No. 20 Community Centre Karkardooma Delhi-110092 PAN No. AAHHB0447F Vs. Income -Tax Officer Ward 55 (4) Civic Centre Minto Road New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. None Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta Sr. DR Date of hearing: 03/02/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 06/02/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. NFAC)”] vide order dated 11-12-2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 arising out the assessment order dated 23-05-2023 u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is time barred by 52 days. The assessee has stated that the appeal could not be filed within time due to miscommunication of the filing clerk. The Printed from counselvise.com 2 assessee has shown the sufficient cause not to file the appeal within time therefore, the application is allowed and delay is condoned, appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal as under: 1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the order of the Ld. AO is bad in law and facts of the case. 2. That the re-opening is bad in law and on wrong facts. 3. That the AO has ignored all the reply submitted by the assessee through online portal time to time and passed an ex-parte order. 4. That there is no dealing with Mr. Naresh Mankchand . 5. That no money was received from Mr. Naresh Manakchand Jain and no deposit shown in the bank. 6. That in the current circumstances of the matter, no addition can be made under section 68 of the case. 7. That the AO has no appreciated the fact that Assessee has sold a share of RS. 86,22,410.00 and payment was received from SM Global Securities. 8. That no addition can be made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. 9. That the appellant reverse the right to alter /add any / all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was re-opened for A.Y. 2014-15 u/s147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued dated 29-06-2022. In the response of the notice the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income at Rs.10,80,400/-. The assessing Officer Printed from counselvise.com 3 completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs.87,60,348/- under section 68 of the Act. 4.1 Aggrieved the order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 11-12-2024 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None is present for assessee. Learned authorized representative for Department of Revenue submitted that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders. He also submitted that the assessee has not taken part in the proceedings before the Ld. NFAC. The appeal was rightly rejected by the Ld. NFAC. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by Ld. NFAC, the assessee did not file his submissions, for which the appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. NFAC. 7. 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 after filing the appeal. The Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim and decide Printed from counselvise.com 4 the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also directed to appear before the Ld. NFAC and co-operate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court 06.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- ( MANISH AGARWAL) ( SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SR BHATNAGGR Date: 06.02.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "