Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, dealt with two appeals relating to assessment years 2013–14 and 2014–15 arising from orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. Since identical issues were involved, assessment year 2013–14 was treated as the lead case. The assessee had filed its return under section 153A declaring income of ₹75.88 lakh, while the assessment under section 143(3) resulted in income of ₹7.43 crore, including an addition for alleged unaccounted profit from transactions with two parties. This addition was earlier confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) but was remanded by the Tribunal with directions to the Assessing Officer to verify transactions and avoid extrapolation beyond seized material.
Pursuant to the Tribunal’s directions, the Assessing Officer passed a fresh order under sections 254, 153A and 143(3), confirming an enhanced addition of ₹1.38 crore. In the second round, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal, observing that no corroborative evidence was furnished and that the Assessing Officer had conducted a cogent enquiry. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for hearing, and the matter was heard ex parte after considering submissions of the Departmental Representative and the record.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and had passed a non-speaking order, which was not sustainable in law. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the matter to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) with directions to pass a reasoned and speaking order after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal also directed adjudication of the legal issue relating to common approval under section 153D, keeping in view the Delhi High Court decision in PCIT vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, to which the Department raised no objection. Accordingly, the appeal for assessment year 2013–14 was allowed for statistical purposes. The same directions were applied mutatis mutandis to assessment year 2014–15, and both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
