Sumer Singh Tyagi Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Ex Parte Assessment Meets Closed Door in Appeal – ITAT Delhi Gives Assessee One More Opportunity as Evidence Was Considered at Neither Stage
Summary: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2023-24. The assessee challenged the appellate order on several grounds, including the validity of the exparte assessment, rejection of additional evidence under Rule 46A, additions under sections 69C and 111A, charging of interest under sections 234B and 234D, and initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The first ground challenged the order of the CIT(A) passed under section 250 as being bad in law and on facts. The assessee also challenged the confirmation of assessment under Section 144 read with Section 144B, contending that the alleged non-compliance during assessment proceedings was neither wilful nor deliberate and was attributable to bona fide reasons, including technical glitches and procedural lapses.
The assessee further contended that the CIT(A) had mechanically rejected the application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, despite explanations regarding the circumstances preventing production of the material during assessment. According to the grounds, this resulted in denial of a fair opportunity.
The assessee also disputed the addition of Rs.1,56,46,999 under Section 69C. It was contended that the addition had been made solely on the basis of AIS/SFT information without independent inquiry, while capital gains statements allegedly evidenced sufficient sale consideration to fund the expenditure.
A further challenge concerned the addition of Rs.7,51,49,582 under Section 111A, which, according to the assessee, resulted from comparing gross foreign remittance figures reported in Form 15CB with net income disclosed in the return. The assessee argued that the two figures were computed on different bases and therefore were not comparable. The remaining grounds challenged the charging of interest under Section 234B and Section 234D, and initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1) and Section 270A(9).
During the proceedings before the Tribunal, the assessee’s counsel brought to the Bench’s attention that the assessment order had been passed exparte under section 144. The counsel submitted that, during the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) had confirmed the additions made in the exparte assessment while refusing to accept the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Consequently, according to the assessee, the assessee’s contentions, details and documents had not been considered either by the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage or by the CIT(A) at the appellate stage.
The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).
The Tribunal considered the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and by the CIT(A) in the appellate order. It found that the assessee’s point of view, documents and details had not been considered by either authority. In view of this position and keeping in mind the element of natural justice, the Tribunal held that the assessee deserved one more opportunity.
Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the case to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a de novo order, directing the Assessing Officer to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law. The assessee was also directed to comply with the Assessing Officer’s requirements and furnish all papers and details in time so that the assessment could be completed at the earliest.
The appeal was consequently allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not finally adjudicate the individual additions or penalty-related grounds; instead, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
Appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2023-24. Grounds of appeal are as under :-
Ground No. 1 That the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Ld. CIT(A)) passed under section (u/s) 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is bad in law and on the facts, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act), and is liable to be set aside.
Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B, without appreciating that the alleged non compliance during the course of Assessment Proceedings was neither willful nor deliberate but due to bona fide reasons, including technical glitches and procedural lapses, particularly in view of the Assessee consistent past compliance and absence of prior proceedings.
Ground No. 3 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the Appellant application under Rule 46A by mechanically disregarding the additional evidence, which was crucial for proper adjudication, despite bona fide explanations provided by the Appellant. Such rejection has resulted in denial of fair opportunity and renders the appellate order unsustainable in law.
Ground No.4 That on the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,56,46,999 under Section 69C, made solely on the basis of non credible AIS/SFT information without independent inquiry, ignoring the capital gains statements evidencing sufficient sale consideration to fund such expenditure, thereby rendering the addition arbitrary and liable to be deleted.
Ground No. 5 That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,51,49,582 under section 111A on account of alleged escaped Short Term Capital Gains, which was made by comparing gross foreign remittance figures reported in Form 15CB with the net income disclosed in the ITR, which is fundamentally flawed and legally untenable as both are computed on different bases and are not comparable accordingly, the addition is unjustified and liable to be deleted.
Ground No. 6 That the Ld. AO has erred in charging the interest under section 234B D of the Act in the case of the Assessee.
Ground No.7 That the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceeding under Section 271AAC(1) and 270A(9) of the Act, having regard to the facts of the Assessee case.
Ground No.8 The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another.
2. During proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that the assessment order in this case was passed exparte u/s.144 of the Act.
3. During the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO in the exparte order refusing to accept additional evidences filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued that the assessee’s contentions and details and documents have not been considered either by the AO in the assessment stage (because the assessment order was passed exparte) or by the Ld. CIT(A) at the appellate stage (because the ld. CIT(A) refused to accept any additional evidence).
4. Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A).
5. We have considered the findings given by the AO in the assessment order and by the Ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We are of the considered view that since assessee’s point of view, assessee’s documents and details have not been considered either by the AO or by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the fitness of things and keeping in view the element of natural justice the assessee deserves one more opportunity. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the file of AO for passing denovo order with the direction that the AO should give adequate opportunity to the assessee as required under law. The appellant is also directed to comply with the requirements of the AO and file all the papers and details in time so that the assessment order may be passed at the earliest.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 02.09.2026.
