MARAL OVERSEAS LIMITED,INDORE vs. ACIT / DCIT, INDORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8218/Del/2025, A.Y. 2011-12 M/s. Maral Overseas Asst./ Dy Commissioner of Limited income Tax, Maral Sarovar, Nimrani, Vs. Central Circle- 31, Khal Bujurg West, Nimar, New Delhi Indore Madhya Pradesh PAN: AACCM0230B (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 20/04/2026 Date of Pronouncement 20/04/2026

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. The appeal preferred by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 03.10.2025 for the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the addition made in the assessment order dated 30.12.2018 were confirmed on the ground that the assessee has failed to respond to the notices issued during the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

the appellant during the search. However, the notices u/s 153A of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 to A.Y. 2016-17 were issued on 12.02.2018 and the assessee filed return on 18.06.2018 under section 153A of the Act declaring total income of Rs. 2,99,05,038/- which was set off against the brought forward losses. The appellant has claimed deduction of Rs. 6,16,24,496/- in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act on account of interest subsidy under TUF scheme, same being in the capital receipt, which was credited to the profit and loss account and was earlier offered for taxation. However, the assessment completed for A.Y. 2011-12 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by making various additions extracted below as under:

Against the said additions, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed on the ground that despite 21 opportunities given to the assessee. No response was filed and no one attended the proceeding before the First Appellate Authority. Both the additions were confirmed by upholding the assessment order.

“1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in passing the impugned order u/s 250 without proper opportunity and in total disregard to principles of natural justice. 1.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) having falled to consider the detalled written submission and in the absence of proper adjudication in terms of section 250(6), the Impugned order is illegal and passed in a mechanical manner. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 32,95,491/- on the alleged ground of bogus purchases even though same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 of the Act. 2.2 That this being a case of unbated assessment and in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132 of the Act, the addition of Rs. 32,95,491/- based on extraneous information is beyond scope and not sustainable. 2.3 That even otherwise, the purchases of Rs. 16,29,093/- and Rs. 16,66,398/-from M/s. Jagdambe Cotton and M/s. Rohit Trading being supported from documentary evidences Including quantitative record, the upholding of addition in absence of any dispute with regard to trading results is arbitrary and without justification. 4

2.4 That the Ld. CIT(A) has fallen into error in upholding the addition which is contrary to facts and established legal principles. 3. That the orders passed by lower authorities are not sustainable in facts and are bad in law. 3.1 That the lower authorities have erred in law and on fact to uphold the impugned order passed by Id AO which was completed without complying with the requirement of law and without taking proper approval of JCIT u/s 153D 4. The appellant craves leave to add, withdraw, amend and/or forego any or all of the above facts whether before or during the appellate proceedings in the interest of natural justice.” 4. We have heard the Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue. As, no one appeared on the argument on behalf of the assessee/appellant. During the argument, we are noticed that the ground no. 1.1 to 1.2 are legal grounds wherein the appellant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing has not been granted and principle of natural justice has not been followed. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue raised in the appeal in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act and has passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner.

4.1 We have heard the Ld. DR on these two issues only who would submit that it is the assessee who has failed to avail the opportunity when notices were issued 21 times as find mentioned in para no. 7 of the

impugned order. It is therefore submitted that the assessee cannot be allowed to raise the ground of lack of opportunity. Secondly, with regard to the non-following the procedure of Section 250(6) of the Acts. It is argued that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order and it does not suffer from any illegality. Hence, the Ld. DR prayed for dismissal of appeal.

As may be seen that during the appellate proceedings, the appellant was provided numerous opportunities as tabulated above. However, the appellant has only filed submissions on ITBA portal. The appellant has not come forward to effectively controvert the findings of the AO. It may be worth noting that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri B. N. Bhattacharjee and another (118 ITR 461) has held that the appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In view of persistent non- compliance to the notices issued to the appellant, I am constrained to presume that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal. These are not faceless appellate proceedings, yet no one has attended these proceedings. Since the appellant has filed submission on ITBA portal, they are being dealt with on merit in subsequent paragraphs.” 6. Similarly, in para No. 7, it is observed that, in view of the persistent non-compliance with the notices issued to the appellant, it is presumed that appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal. These observations of the Ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, merely show that the notices were issued; however they do not establish that the said notices were ever received by the assessee or were duly served upon the assessee.

“Section 250 (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal: - a. The appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;” 8

8. It is evident from the provision of Section 250 sub section2 (a) of the Act that the opportunity of hearing to be given is not a formality but an effective hearing is sine qua non for the purpose of upholding the principal of natural justice. Admittedly there is no proof on record that the notices sent 21 times was duly served upon the assessee or has been received by the assessee. Therefore, we find force in the grounds raised by the assessee in that regard and therefore conclude that the opportunity of effective hearing as requirement of Section 250 sub section 2(a) of the Act, has not been granted to the assessee, accordingly ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee. Similarly, on perusal of the impugned order with regard to the ground no. 2 raised, we are convinced that the Ld. CIT(A) has not followed the provisions as laid down in section 250(6) of the Act as the impugned order suffers from lack of reasons and adjudication has not been done after determining the point of determination as is requirement of the said provision of Section 250 sub section (6) of "the Act" which provides as under:

“The order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”

that the Ld. CIT(A) while passing the impugned order has not followed the provision of Section 250(6) of the Act. For these reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable as the same suffers from lack of effective opportunity of hearing and non-following the required procedure for deciding the appeal on merit. In these facts and circumstances justice shall be met by restoring matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh by giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee/appellant. The appellant/assessee is directed to present its case within the period of 60 days from this order without any fail on their part. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 20th April, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22/04/2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT/PCIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. Sr. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI