S D PORTFOLIO AND INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-22(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 3541/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 22883 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: UDIT DAD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 22

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3541/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 S D Portfolio and Infratech Private Limited Delhi 110028 PAN No. AANCS6996F Vs. Income tax, Officer, ward - 22 (1) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Udit Dad , Adv Respondent by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal Sr. DR Date of hearing: 26/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26 /03/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is preferred by the assessee is against the order 05-06-2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)[hereinafter referred to 2 as “NFAC)”] arising out of the order 04-12-2019 passed Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after, the Act] for the assessment year 2012-13. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in appeal: “1. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in upholding the order of assessment dated 04.12.2019 passed u/s 147 r/w section 144 of the Act failing to appreciate that initiation of the reassessment proceedings as well as aggregate additions made of Rs. 7,66,65,100/- in the order of re assessment is wholly unsustainable in law. 2. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 'one day' in filing the appeal without appreciating that delay in filing of appeal was on account of bonafide reasons. 3. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in failing to appreciate that initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act by the learned AO was without satisfying the statutory preconditions as envisaged under section 147 of the Act, and hence initiation of the reassessment proceedings is bad in law. 4. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,89,65,100/- made u/s 69 of the Act failing to appreciate that such sum was paid by the appellant for the purchase of land out of books of account of the appellant. 5. That the learned National Faceless AppealCentre (NFAC), New Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act which addition has arbitrarily been made by the learned AO in the order of reassessment. 3 6 That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi has grossly erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,42,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act which addition has arbitrarily been made by the learned AO in the order of reassessment. 7. That the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi as well as the learned AO has grossly erred in passing the impugned order/assessment order without providing to the assessee, a fair and proper and meaningful opportunity of being heard, violating the principles of natural justice and thus the impugned order/assessment order is vitiated both on fact and in law.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 26-09-2012 declaring total income at Rs. 2081/-. The case was accordingly processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act. Subsequently the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny and order u/s 143 of the Act was passed. Notices u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act were issued but the assessee neither filed the return of income in the compliance of the notices nor submitted any reply. The, Assessing, officer has completed the assessment by making the addition of Rs. 7,67,81,980/-. Aggrieved the order of the A.O. the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) who vide his order dated 05-06-2024 dismissed the appeal against which the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 4 5. We have heard the rival submission made by the respective parties. We have also perused the relevant materials available on record. Perusal of the order of the Ld. NFAS it reveals that the appeal was dismissed by adopting the hyper technical approach not condoning the delay of one day only. The Ld. NFAC should have condone the delay and should have decide on merit. The, assessee has shown the sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within time. Thus, keeping in view, the entire aspects of the matter, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal before the Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A) having been satisfied with the explanation so rendered by the assessee before the said authority. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is setting side, the issue of the file is restored before the Ld. CIT(A) who will decide the matter after giving the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the appellate authority. 5 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.03.2025 Sd/- Sd/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 26.03.2025 Pooja/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Sl. Particulars Date 6 No. 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order: 2. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal order is placed before the Dictation Member: 3. Date on which the typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member: 4. Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. PS/PS: 5. Date of which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement: 6. Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. PS/PS: 7. Date on which the final Tribunal Order is uploaded by the Sr.PS/PS on official website: 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk along with Tribunal Order. 9. Date of killing off the disposed of files on the judiSIS Portal of ITAT by the Bench Clerk: 10. Date on which file goes to the Supervisor (Judicial): 11. The date on which the file goes to the Asst. Registrar for endorsement of the order: 12. Date of dispatch of the order "