GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (1)(2), BANGALORE

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Ludhiana dated 30.12.2025 vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084192188(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18.

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, Green Infrastructure Projects Private Limited ["the Appellant"] respectfully prefers an appeal under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"], against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ADDL/ JCIT (A) 1 Ludhiana ["learned CIT(A)"] on 30 December 2025, on the following grounds:

ITA No.670/Bang/2026 Green Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 2 of 6

Ground 1: General 1 .1 The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous, unsustainable in law and on facts, as it mechanically confirms the order of the learned Assessing Officer without due application of mind. The learned CIT (A) has further erred in routinely upholding the addition of as unexplained money, ignoring the material on record and settled legal principles, Ground 2: Violation of principles of natural justice/ procedural Grounds 2.1The impugned order passed by the learned CIT (A) is erroneous, illegal and unsustainable in law, as the same has been passed merely for want of written submissions, without adjudication of the grounds of appeal on merits. The order suffers from a patent violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory requirements of section 250(6) of the Act, rendering it null and void and is therefore liable to be quashed. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law in disposing of the appeal in a summary manner, in complete disregard of the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, without framing points for determination, recording findings or assigning reasons. The impugned order being a non-speaking, cryptic and mechanical order passed without due application of' mind is liable to be set aside. 2.3 The learned CIT (A) has erred in law in disposing of the appeal without adjudicating the grounds on merits and in treating the same as dismissed for non-prosecution, thereby violating the statutory mandate and the principles of natural justice. 2.4 Without prejudice to the foregoing grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the appellant as merely because the reply uploaded on 1 1 .12.2025 could not be downloaded due to an alleged technical issue, which was beyond the appellant's control. Having acknowledged the filing of the reply, the learned CIT (A) ought to have granted a reasonable opportunity by calling forresubmission and/or by providing a hearing through video conferencing. The impugned action is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Ground 3: Additions made under section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs 26,20,938 3.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of under section 68 of the Act by treating regular business cash receipts as unexplained, merely on the •basis of estimated comparison with earlier years. The addition, having been made without rejecting the books of account andwithout examining the statutory conditions of section 68, is unsustainable and is liable to be deleted.

ITA No.670/Bang/2026 Green Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 6

3.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the addition by resorting to an arbitrary and legally impermissible methodology of comparing cash deposits of earlier years and mechanically applying an estimated ratio of 82.61%, without any material, enquiry, or statutory sanction. The impugned addition, founded solely on conjecture and without any evidentiary basis or defect in books, is arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in law and is liable to be deleted 3.3 The learned CIT (A) has erred in 'law and on facts in upholding the addition of alleged unexplained cash deposits during demonetisation when the appellant, a trader in fruits and vegetables operating predominantly a cash-driven business, had fully accounted for the deposits as routine business receipts drawn from pre-demonetisation cash balances and duly recorded in the books of account and' the addition, made purely on suspicion without any defect or discrepancy in the accounts, is wholly arbitrary, contrary to settled judicial principles, and therefore liable to be deleted. 3.4 Without prejudice to the above, the learned authorities have erred in law and on facts in invoking section 68 in respect of cash deposits during the demonetisation period by failing to appreciate that demonetisation caused abnormal cash inflows and such deposits cannot be mechanically compared with earlier years, making the addition arbitrary, unsustainable, and liable to be deleted

Ground 4: Interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act

ITA No.670/Bang/2026 Green Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 4 of 6 inference to be drawn against the assessment order passed by the AO in the matter, as the same is based on correct factual matrix and sound legal grounds. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that in fact the assessee had submitted the detailed submission/reply on 11/12/2025 as acknowledged by the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) himself however, on a technical ground treated the compliance of the assessee as no-compliance with no fault of the assessee. Lastly, the ld. AR of the assessee strongly contended that no subsequent opportunity of being heard was granted by the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) & the claim of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) that further hearing notice dated 17/12/2025 was issued is completely baseless & unfounded and in fact it was never served on the assessee.

ITA No.670/Bang/2026 Green Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 5 of 6

5.1 However, the contention of the AR of the assessee is that no such hearing notice dated 17/12/2025 was ever served to the assessee before dismissing the appeal of the assessee by treating the compliance of the assessee as non-compliance which is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. This being so, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of ld. Addl/JCIT(A) to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to upload the submissions along with the supporting

ITA No.670/Bang/2026 Green Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 6 of 6 documents/records to substantiate its claim. It is ordered accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 31st July, 2026. VG/SPS

Copy to:

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.