AKSHAR AGRI INDIA LLP,VASHI,NAVI MUMBAI, THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI,NAVI MUMBAI, THANE

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading-cum-indenting, primarily in pulses and other agricultural commodities. The assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 85,69,990/-, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened under Section 148 of the Act pursuant to the search and seizure and survey operations conducted in the cases of Shri Ramesh Chaurasia and Shri Achal Chaurasia of the ARC Group, and based on the statements of certain related persons. In response to the notice issued under Section 148, the assessee filed a return declaring the same income of Rs. 85,69,990/-. During the reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,45,66,120/- under Section 69C of the Act by treating the purchases made from M/s Adesh Agrifarm LLP as unexplained expenditure. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) issued notices fixing the appeal for hearing on three different occasions. However, the assessee failed to appear or make effective representation. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by treating the entire purchases from M/s Adesh Agrifarm LLP amounting to Rs.1,45,66,120/- as bogus purchases. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee is now in appeal before us.

The Ld. AR filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 170, which has been taken on record. It was contended that during the assessment proceedings, as well as before this Bench, the assessee furnished ledger confirmations, transport receipts, warehouse invoices, labour bills, and GST returns for the months of November and December 2019 in support of the impugned purchases. However, according to the Ld. AR, the Ld. AO failed to properly examine or appreciate the said documentary evidence while sustaining the addition. It was further submitted that the assessee was not afforded an effective and reasonable opportunity of being heard before the Ld. CIT(A), resulting in the appeal being disposed of ex parte. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after granting adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the revenue authorities. However, the Ld. DR fairly left the issue to the discretion of the Bench if the matter was considered appropriate for restoration in the interest of justice.

We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the material available on record. It is evident that the impugned appellate order was passed ex parte as the assessee did not effectively participate in the appellate proceedings. Before us, the assessee has produced various documents, including ledger confirmations, transport receipts, warehouse invoices, labour bills and GST returns, which, according to the assessee, have a bearing on the adjudication of the issue. In the interest of substantial justice and having regard to the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more effective opportunity to substantiate its claim before the first appellate authority. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for de novo adjudication in accordance with law after affording the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard and after considering all the evidences and submissions that may be placed on record. The assessee shall extend full cooperation and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions, and all issues are left open for fresh adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.4792/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of July 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 28/07/2026 SAUMYA Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI