ISHA KITCHENS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Vide 3 grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised following two issues: (i) Proper opportunity of being heard was not provided by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had provided last opportunity of being heard on 21.11.2025 and disposed of the case on 25.11.2025. 1 (ii) Addition of Rs.42,47,210/- on merit.

The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the business premises of assessee was surveyed under section 133A of the Act on 19.02.2019. The assessee filed Income Tax Return (ITR) of the relevant year on 26.03.2020 declaring income of Rs.78,25,160/-. Being a survey case, the case was picked up for scrutiny. During the course of survey operation at the business premises of the assessee, certain incriminating materials were impounded. Based on the incriminating material, it was noticed that the assessee had not disclosed entire sales in its regular books of account. The sale data of the assessee compared with the monthly POS entries revealed that the sale as POS was Rs.8,09,43,147/- as against the sale of Rs.05,25,71,703/- recorded in regular books of accounts. The difference of Rs.2,83,71,444/-; i.e. the difference between sale as per the POS machine and sale as per the books of account, was treated as unexplained unaccounted sale of the assessee. During the course of survey operations, one of the partners of assessee surrendered the said income and admitted the unaccounted sale of Rs.2,83,71,444/- of the assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) applied average Gross Profit @14.97% on the unaccounted sale of Rs.2,83,71,444/-, which resulted addition of Rs.42,47,210/- in the hands of the assessee. The consequential scrutiny assessment, for the first time, was completed vide order dated 13.09.2021. Aggrieved with the assessment order dated 13.09.2021, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal. The assessee agitated by the said appellate order and filed appeal before the Tribunal, who remanded back the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 20.05.2025 in ITA 243/RPR/2025 as under:

The Tribunal, vide its order dated 20.05.2025 in the case of assessee in ITA 243/RPR/2025, directed the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the remitted appeal within three months. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A), in remitted appellate proceedings, was having limited time period to dispose of the said appeal. In pursuance of the Tribunal order dated 20.05.2025 in the case of assessee in ITA 243/RPR/2025, the Ld. CIT(A) provided three opportunities of being heard to the assessee on (i) on 26.09.2025, (ii) 17.11.2025 and; (iii) 25.11.2025. However, the assessee did not respond to the same and sought adjournment one after another on one reasoning and another. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in para No.2 of the impugned order reads as under:

On merit, the Ld. CIT (A) has decided the issue as under:

This appeal before the Tribunal is for the second time.

Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not provided proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thus, he had not followed the principles of natural justice. He prayed for remanding matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Ld. Sr. DR was not present when the matter was called for hearing. However, the matter was taken as heard considering the submissions of the Ld. AR of the assessee and on a careful perusal of the material available on the record.

We have heard the Ld. AR at length and have perused the material available on the record. This is a second round of litigation before us. In first round, the matter was remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication; however, the assessee did not pursue the appeal properly within the reasonable time frame available with the Ld. CIT(A). It is evident from the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided three opportunities of being heard as mentioned above in para 4. Since the Ld. CIT(A) was having only three months’ time to dispose off the appeal in view of the direction of the Tribunal order dated 20.05.2025 in the case of assessee in ITA 243/RPR/2025; therefore, he cannot adjourn the case beyond three months’ time as desired by the assessee. The facts on the record clearly demonstrate that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Non-compliance on the part of the appellant assessee cannot be taken as an excuse for remanding matter again for the second time. The non-pursuance of its appeal by the assessee in remitted appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) clearly shows that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) within the specified time of three months as per the Tribunal order dated 20.05.2025 in the case of assessee in ITA 243/RPR/2025. In view of the facts, we do not find any violation of principle of natural justice on the part of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, we dismiss Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee.

We have heard the Ld. AR at length and have perused the material available on the record. This is a second round of litigation before us. After thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the remitting matter back again to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for second time due to consistent non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) will set a wrong precedent particularly when the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on merit of the addition is well reasoned and requires no interference from us. We, therefore, keeping in view the entire facts of the case and finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in impugned order decline to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal filed by the assessee is therefore, dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

""थ"/ The Respondent

The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file.