DCIT, CIRCLE -1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. MAA KAMAKHYA COKE INDUSTRIES LLP, GUWAHATI

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These are cross appeals filed by both the assessee and the Revenue and are against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Central NER, Guwahati [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2022-23 dated 23.01.2026. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case.

“1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by holding the purchase transactions as genuine merely on the basis of documentary paper trails such as payments through banking channels and GST filings, entirely ignoring the crucial fact that statutory notices u/s 133(6) of the Act sent to the suppliers were returned unserved by the postal authorities with the definitive remark "Insufficient address".

The appeal of the assessee was heard on 13.05.2026 and none of the parties informed that the Revenue had also filed the appeal, which came up for hearing on the next day i.e. 14.05.2026. As regards the assessee’s appeal, the disallowance of ₹48,94,515/- pertaining to the unverified transactions with Nathush Chandra Sangma was upheld and confirmed. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition on account of purchases on the basis of the additional evidence filed, barring in the case of one of the suppliers viz. Nathush Chandra Sangma, without granting an opportunity to the Ld. AO to examine the additional evidence received. It is mentioned as under for admitting the additional evidence:

“6. Decision

to allow an opportunity to the Ld. AO to examine the same as per rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”), and the admission of the additional evidence was in violation of rule 46A of the Rules as proper opportunity was not provided to the Ld. AO to examine the same. It is mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) that in the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted additional evidence such as purchase bills/invoices, e-Way bills, Delivery challans, ledger, bank statement and GSTR9 for the F.Y. 2021-22 relevant to A.Y.2022-23. In view of the same, a remand report was sought from the Assessing Officer vide his office letter dated 11.12.2025, reminders dated 19.12.2025 and 12.01.2026. In spite of the reminders, the remand report from the Assessing Officer was pending till date. Hence, the appellant’s appeal was decided on merits in absence of the remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, the Ld. AO had also granted an opportunity to the assessee as the requisition notices under section 133(6) of the Act, in the cases of Rajiya Khatoon, Bikram Rawani, Priti Devi, Soni Devi were returned by the Postal Authority with remarks “Insufficient address”. In the above facts and circumstances the genuineness of the claim of the purchases from the above purported suppliers had been doubted. A show cause in this regard was issued and served on the assessee on 12.03.2024 appraising the assessee the above facts. In the show cause notice the assessee was requested to explain as to why its claim of purchases from the above parties should not be disallowed treating the same as bogus purchases. In response the assessee submitted only copies of the ledger of the above parties in its books of account and no credible documentary evidences including confirmations could be furnished by the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the above purchases totalling ₹20,92,51,089/-. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant furnished copy of related purchase bills/invoices, E-way bills, Delivery challans, ledger, bank statement and GSTR9 for FY 2021-22 relevant to A.Y.2022-23 before the Ld. CIT(A) and on examination of the documentary evidences furnished by the appellant, it was noted by him that out of total numbers of eleven (11) purported suppliers, all barring one (1) supplier namely, Nathush Chandra Sangma Prop. of Meghalaya Carbon having purported purchases of Rs.48,94,515/-, were found to have filed their respective GST returns during the relevant A.Y.2022-23, e-Way Bills which are found to be allegedly duly supported by the purchase bills/invoices raised by the suppliers against the appellant. No confirmation from any of the suppliers was filed by the assessee yet the relief was granted. Hence, in the interest of justice and fair play it was considered that the request of the Revenue to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be allowed as without granting sufficient time to furnish the remand report called for from the Ld. AO and despite the notices issued by the Ld. AO being returned unserved, relief was granted on the additional evidence filed without granting adequate opportunity to the Ld. AO to examine the same. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the appeal is remanded to him to pass a speaking order after granting an opportunity of being heard to the Ld. AO by calling for a remand report once again and the Ld. AO is directed to file the same at the earliest. Needless to say, the assessee as well as the Ld. AO both shall be given adequate opportunity of being heard to make any further submission they want to make and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 shall also be followed. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue in its appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Since the order of the ITA No(s). 151 &161/GTY/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2022-23 Ld. CIT(A) has been set aside, the appeal of the assessee is also partly allowed for statistical purpose and the assessee shall also be at liberty to file any evidence before him in support of the relief claimed. Hence, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Copy of the order forwarded to: