Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal for non-compliance and failure to provide details. The assessee's grounds of appeal included that the authorities erred in passing an ex-parte order and making high-pitched additions. The assessee claimed to have been unable to file necessary details before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating each ground raised by the assessee, which is mandatory. Citing a High Court decision, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for denovo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to file necessary documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without a proper adjudication of the grounds raised by the assessee, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144B, 26AS, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shakil Shakur Bijapure, V The Dy. Commissioner 36 Yashwantrao Super Marker, s. of Income Tax, Circle, Shaniwar Peth, Karad, Satara. Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. PAN: ACGPB9332G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod S Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri Amit Bobde – CIT(DR) Date of hearing 09/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 11/06/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.02.2025. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1.On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order and erred in deciding the issue only on the basis of material available with them, this action is being violative of principal of natural justice. Your appellant prays for granting opportunity of hearing before lower authorities.
Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, following grounds are also taken on merit.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in passing an order under section 147 rws 144 B by making very high-pitched additions which are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore order is bad in law and deserves to be struck down.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 80,400/- on account of contract receipt on the bases of figures reported in Form No. 26 AS, by rejecting appellants submission that this contact receipt does not pertain to him and therefore no addition is warranted.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.5,70,00,000 on the basis of figures reported in Form No 26 AS by treating the same as amount received on sale of property by rejecting appellants submission that no such transaction of sale of property has taken place and the amount merely represents an advance, therefore entire addition needs to be deleted.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing a sum of Rs 7,05,80,051 being interest claimed on business loans by treating it as loan for non- business activity, and by rejecting appellants contention that all the loans are in connection with business activity of the appellant and therefore entire interest is allowable as business expenditure
6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing erred in making an addition of Rs.29,48,61,555 on account of unsecured loan by invoking provision of section 68, by rejecting the submissions and the documentary evidences brought on record. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition.
7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer erred in making and addition of Rs. 87,90,678 being 20% of total purchase of Rs 4,39,53,392 to cover up assumed leakages in purchase and income from credit notes, such additions are not envisaged in any of the provisions of the Act. and since Learned Assessing Officer having accepted the books of account cannot proceed to make such adhoc disallowance, same may kindly be deleted.
Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted that Assessee could not file details before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, ld.AR submitted that one more opportunity may be given.
Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. The relevant paragraphs 10 and 11 of ld.CIT(A)’s order are hereby reproduced as under : “10. No compliance was made by the appellant, on the merits of the case, and thus the appellant failed to explain its case during appellate proceedings. This attitude of the appellant reflects complete disregard to the proceedings and in such circumstances, appellant does not deserve any relief. Further, looking at the chronological history also, it is noted that the appellant is not interested in submitting any material in favor of its grounds of appeal and merely filing of appeal cannot result into adjudication on merits, without substantiating the grounds of appeal. On the merit of the case also, there is nothing on record which can substantiate the case of appellant.
Therefore, in view of the above facts, I am constrained to uphold the order of the Assessing Officer, in absence of any supporting evidence, documents submitted by the appellant. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed.”
4.1 Thus, it is noted that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal because assessee could not file the details. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated each and every ground raised by the assessee which is mandatory. We derive support from the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11 June, 2025.