DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI PAWAN KUMAR TIWARI, LUCKNOW

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Lucknow-2, dated 13.11.2019 for the assessment year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal

of the Revenue are as under: -

1. The CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.3,84,84,465/- in respect of sundry creditors without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not established proving genuineness of outstanding sundry creditors u/s 41(1) of the I. T. Act.

2. The CIT(A) has erred in law & on facts of the case in restricting the addition of Rs.39,75,910, Rs. 28,50,651/- and Rs.3,77,122/- in respect of purchases of material, Labour Charges and other expenses respectively as the assessee had failed to produce a single original bill/voucher of expenses/purchases against the AO despite of sufficient opportunities.” (B) In this case, vide assessment order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.5,33,25,830/- (Rounded off to Page 2 of 3 Rs.5,33,25,830/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, total additions amounting to Rs.4,94,62,422/- were made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 13.11.2019. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 13.11.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A).

(B.1) At the time of hearing, the assessee was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (“DR”, for short) for Revenue was heard. He relied on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. However, he submitted that he had no objection if the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to pass fresh assessment order in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

(B.2) The Ld. Sr. DR for Revenue has been heard and materials placed on record have been perused. On perusal of the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 13.11.2019, it is found that the Ld. CIT(A) passed order without providing reasonable opportunity. Further, the factual matrix as available on records is not sufficiently clear. In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 13.11.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A) and we restore the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer; with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 07/10/2025.