NORTH EAST NE BITUMEN,GUWAHATI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 256/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the books of accounts were seized by the service tax authorities and could not be produced before the AO and CIT(A), the orders were passed without considering them. To ensure justice, the cases were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre for AY 2021-22. Penalties were levied under Section 271AAD and 270A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee could not produce books of accounts as they were seized by the DGGI.

What were the issues?

Whether the orders passed without considering seized books of accounts, which were not produced due to seizure by another authority, are valid and if the matter should be remanded to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAD,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘GAUHATI BENCH’, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AR
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar karnani, DR
Hearing: 09.03.2026Pronounced: 13.03.2026

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT (A)”] dated 17.02.2025 for the AY 2021-22. The penalties were levied u/s 271AAD & 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred as „the Act‟) vide order dated 23.06.2023 & 27.06.2023.

2.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset stated that the documents / books of accounts of the assessee were seized by DGGI, Shillong Regional Unit, Meghalaya and therefore the same could not be furnished by the assessee before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed before the bench that since the books of accounts/records were released by the DGGI

3.

The ld. DR on the other hand, fairly considered that the assessee had not produced the documents/ books of account before the authorities below as these were seized by the service tax authorities.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the books of accounts/ documents were seized by the service tax authorities and consequently could not be produced before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT (A) and the orders were passed without taking into account the records/books of accounts. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we are inclined to restore these cases to the file of the ld. AO so that these books of accounts along with documents could be examined by the authorities and case can be decided denovo after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, we restore the appeal to the file of AO with the above directions.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 13.03.2026.

More judgments on Section 271AAD

All 32 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →