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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 258/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 March 2026AY 2021-223 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the books of accounts and documents of the assessee were seized by the service tax authorities, preventing their production before the AO and CIT(A). Consequently, the orders were passed without considering these crucial records. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the cases to the file of the AO. This restoration is for the purpose of examining the books of accounts and documents, and for deciding the case denovo after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee is prevented from presenting its case due to circumstances beyond its control, such as seizure of records by another agency, the appellate authorities should provide an opportunity for a fresh adjudication after the records are made available. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, North East NE Bitumen, filed appeals against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The appeals challenged penalties levied under Section 271AAD and Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by orders dated 23.06.2023 and 27.06.2023. The assessee's counsel stated that the books of accounts and documents were seized by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Shillong Regional Unit, Meghalaya, and thus could not be produced before the Assessing Officer (AO) or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The assessee requested an opportunity to produce these documents after their release by DGGI Assam. The Revenue's counsel fairly conceded that the documents were not produced due to seizure by service tax authorities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, considering that the assessee's books of accounts and documents were seized by the DGGI and could not be produced before the lower authorities. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that due to the seizure of its books of accounts and documents by the DGGI, it was unable to furnish them before the AO and CIT(A). Upon the release of these records, the assessee requested an opportunity to produce them before the authorities below for a proper examination. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative fairly acknowledged that the assessee's failure to produce the documents was attributable to their seizure by the service tax authorities.

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 →