RAVI KUMAR KEDIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 630/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 October 2026AY 2013-149 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal (II and III) alleged gross non-application of mind by the CIT(Appeals) and violation of principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the non-supply of the Section 133(6) reply and denial of cross-examination. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in Nimit Agrawal Vs. DCIT, where similar grounds concerning the violation of principles of natural justice and un-adjudicated grounds by the First Appellate Authority led to a remand. Following this precedent, the Tribunal found that the ground assailed by the assessee regarding the opportunity of cross-examination was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, without going into the merits of the additions, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to its file for de novo adjudication, directing compliance with the principles of natural justice and a speaking order. The assessee was directed to duly comply with hearing notices from the First Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ravi Kumar Kedia, an individual engaged in rice milling, filed his return for Assessment Year 2013-14 declaring an income of Rs. 2,88,490. The assessment was reopened under Section 147 based on information from a survey operation indicating accommodation entry providers issuing bogus purchase bills. The Assessing Officer (AO) formed a belief that income had escaped assessment after discovering that the assessee had recorded bogus purchases of paddy totaling Rs. 14,40,000 from M/s Ridhi Sidhi Foods. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 30/03/2021. The assessee filed a delayed return and failed to comply with subsequent notices under Section 142(1). The supplier, M/s Ridhi Sidhi Foods, denied any business relationship. The AO treated the Rs. 14,40,000 as unexplained credit under Section 68 and made an addition, finalizing the assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC rejected the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not considering that the AO had issued a notice under Section 133(6) to an incorrect party and relied on its reply to conclude that the appellant's purchases were bogus and non-genuine? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 133(6) and principles of natural justice). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in not appreciating that the AO violated the principles of natural justice by not supplying the copy of the reply received pursuant to the notice under Section 133(6) and by not providing an opportunity for cross-examination of the party whose replies formed the basis of the additions? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contentions: - The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the notice under Section 133(6) was issued to an incorrect party, leading to a misinformed conclusion. (Ground II). - The Ld. AO violated principles of natural justice by not supplying the copy of the reply received from the party pursuant to the Section 133(6) notice and by not providing an opportunity for cross-examination. (Ground III). Revenue's Contentions: - The Ld. Sr. DR conceded that justice would be better served if the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 44AB,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 144,Section 156,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234D,Section 250(4),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.10.2026Pronounced: 22.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 24.06.2026 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the time of hearing, when the matter was call up for hearing, none appeared for the assessee. That as per order sheet entries, the matter came up for hearing on 09.09.2026, 17.09.2026, 23.09.2026, 30.09.2026 and finally today i.e. 22.10.2026. In all these

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →