DHINGRA ONION COMPANY,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(4), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 1078/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dhingra Onion Company appealing against the orders of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,51,16,141 to the Assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The additions were initially made by the A.O. under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a non-cooperative assessment under section 144 due to the Assessee's failure to appear despite several notices. The Assessee contested that their responses and documents were not considered by the A.O., leading to the appeal. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had indeed overlooked the Assessee's submissions and thus remanded the case back to the A.O. for a thorough re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474900 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KAUSHIK
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144; 69A; 234B

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 1078/Del/2024 Dhingra Onion Company Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1078/Del/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Dhingra Onion Company Flat No. 27, New Vindhyachal CGHS, Plot No. 27, Sector -13, Rohini Delhi PAN: AABFD5891K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(4) Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Amit Kaushik, Adv Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 23/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: This present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [(‘NFAC’) for short] Delhi, dated09/01/2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Grounds of Appeal are as under: - “1. That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the respondent making additions of Rs. 3,51,16,141/- without considering that the same was without jurisdiction and bad in law. 2 ITA No. 1078/Del/2024 Dhingra Onion Company Vs. ITO 2. That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the respondent making additions of Rs. 3,51,16,141/- without application of mind to the material on record in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the respondent making additions of Rs. 3,51,16,141/- without considering that the same is non- est as the same has been passed on a non-existent entity and violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC). 4. That the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the respondent making additions of Rs. 3,51,16,141/- without considering that the entire amount has been duly considered by the sole proprietorship. 5. hat the NFAC grossly erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant by confirming the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the respondent making additions of Rs. 3,51,16,141/- under section 69A of the Act. 6. That the NFAC on facts and in law erred in not deleting the interest levied by the respondent under section 234B and 234C of the Act. 7. The Appellant craves for leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3 ITA No. 1078/Del/2024 Dhingra Onion Company Vs. ITO 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment proceeding has been initiated against the Assessee for Assessment Year 2017-18. Even after issuance several notices, the Assessee failed to appear before the A.O. An assessment order came to be passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) by making an addition of Rs. 3,51,169,141/- u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29/11/2019, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 09/01/2024, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the Grounds mentioned above. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that though the Assessee has filed response to notice issued by the A.O., the Ld. A.O. failed to consider the reply of the Assessee and the document produced thereon and made the addition. Thus, submitted that the Ld. A.O. and CIT(A) have committed error, therefore, sought for setting aside the order impugned. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunities have been provided to the Assessee by the A.O., the Assessee failed to file any reply, therefore, the Assessee cannot find error in the orders of the Lower Authorities, thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 4 ITA No. 1078/Del/2024 Dhingra Onion Company Vs. ITO 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the A.O. observed that ‘the Assessee has chosen not to provide any cooperation and has not furnished any reply/response’, accordingly, the assessment order has been passed u/s 144 of the Act. However, on perusal of the paper book it wherein the Assessee produced copy of the Portal, found that the Assessee indeed filed ‘response’ on 30/09/2019 and also attached the document which has been relied by the Assessee. Since, the A.O. has not looked into the reply filed by the Assessee and the document produced by the Assessee and proceeded to pass Assessment Order u/s 144 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the assessment order as well as the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of A.O. for fresh adjudication with a direction to consider the reply and the document filed by the Assessee and pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law. 7. In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 5 ITA No. 1078/Del/2024 Dhingra Onion Company Vs. ITO 8. Since we have restored the matter to the file of the A.O., other Grounds of appeal on the merit requires no adjudication by us, which are kept open to be decided by the A.O. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 29.01.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "