KIRTI POLYMERS,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

Brief facts of the case are that, for the Assessment Year 2013–14, the assessee had not filed any return of income. Based on information received by the Department, it was noticed that one Shri Chetan Bhalodiya, proprietor of Yash Enterprises, Rajkot, was engaged in the business of Shroff/Angadia services and that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries who had obtained cheque entries against cash deposits of Rs.1,00,000 or more during the relevant previous year. Accordingly, the case was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In response to the said notice, no compliance was made by the assessee. Thereafter, notices issued u/s. 142(1) and 143(2) also remained uncomplied with. Consequently, in the absence of any material available on record from the assessee’s side, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act by making an addition of Rs.14,18,000 and determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,18,000.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, due to only partial compliance by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the action of the Assessing Officer.

Still aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the learned AR submitted that adequate opportunity was not provided to the assessee and that the copy of the remand report furnished by the Assessing Officer before the Ld. CIT(A) was never supplied to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record, we find merit in the contention of the learned AR. It is evident that the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer before the Ld. CIT(A) was not furnished to the assessee for rebuttal before passing the appellate order. In the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate his claim by furnishing the necessary evidences.

We further find that the issues involved in the present appeal in ITA No. 723/RJT/2025 are identical to those considered by us in ITA No.722/RJT/2025. Following our findings therein, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after furnishing a copy of the remand report, if any, relied upon.

Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.