Olympia Fitness Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
AO made addition of ₹36,70,229 treating undisclosed turnover as income u/s 68 based on statement recorded & impounded material from survey u/s 133A.
CIT(A)/NFAC passed ex-parte order after four hearing dates, three of which involved Assessee’s adjournment requests, & no adjournment on the last date.
Assessee argued before Tribunal that they sought inspection of impounded material forming basis of addition & could not effectively contest before CIT(A). Tribunal held that, considering request for inspection & overall facts, Assessee deserved one more opportunity. Ex-parte order was therefore set aside & matter restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting proper opportunity. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 21.08.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts.
2. i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee an opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice.
ii) That the non appearance on the last date of hearing before the NFAC was for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving a proper finding on the merits of the case.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.36,70,229/- made by AO on account of undisclosed turnover u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made u/s 68, ignoring that the said section is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order without giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity. The ld. AR of the assessee fairly submits that hearing was fixed by the ld. CIT(A) on four occasion out of which the assessee sought adjournment on three occasions, such fact is recorded in para-4 in sub-para-4.1 of the order. However, on fourth occasion, the assessee could not file adjournment application, resultantly, the ld. CIT(A) passed the ex-parte The ld. AR of the assessee submits that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to contest the case on merit and the matter may be restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).
