Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee-appellant challenged an order of the CIT(A) which upheld an addition of Rs. 29,90,683/- made by the AO on account of undisclosed income for assessment year 2009-10. The original assessment order was passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not consider the directions previously issued by a coordinate bench for assessment year 2010-11, which were relevant to the identical issue in assessment year 2009-10. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the directions issued by a coordinate bench for a prior assessment year when adjudicating an identical issue for the current assessment year.
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 133A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC-Bench” JAIPUR
Before: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM
vkns'k@ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, JUDICIALMEMBER .
Assessee-appellant has challenged order dated 17.12.2024, passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2009-10, as his appeal challenging assessment order dated 27.12.2016, passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), came to be dismissed.
Heda Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Kishangarh. 2. Learned CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs. 29,90,683/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income, while applying 10% GP rate instead of 4.53% shown by the assessee.
Arguments heard. File perused.
The only contention raised by Ld. AR for the appellant is that earlier the assessee-appellant was in appeal before this Appellate Tribunal, while challenging order dated 01.05.2017, passed by Learned CIT(A), Ajmer, relating to the assessment year 2010-11; that said order dated 01.05.2017 passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2010-11, was set aside, with certain directions to Learned CIT(A) and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law; that when the above said order relating to the assessment year 2010-11, pertaining to the assessee, was set aside, Learned CIT(A) who has passed the present impugned order relating to the assessment year 2009-10 should have complied with the very directions issued by the Coordinate Bench, ITAT, Jaipur, as regards the matter of Assessment Year 2010-11.
The contention is that since Learned CIT(A) has not complied with the above said directions, the matter deserves to be remitted to Learned CIT(A) even as regards the assessment year 2009-10.
Heda Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Kishangarh. 5. Admittedly, relating to the assessment year 2010-11 was filed by the assessee-appellant, while challenging the order dated 01.05.2017, passed by Learned CIT(A), Ajmer.
Those assessment proceedings had arisen out of survey conducted u/s 133A of the Act, at the business premises Shri Naresh Agarwal and Smt. Kiran Agarwal. During survey, it was noticed that huge cash was deposited by them in their bank account. Said two persons represented to the department that the transactions in their bank account actually pertained to various marble traders of Kishangarh. They also disclosed that sale proceeds of M/s Heda Marble, the assessee-appellant herein had also deposited cash at different places/stations, in their bank account, and further that after withdrawal of the cash at Kishangarh, the said cash was passed on to Shri Sharad Hedda, Manager of the assessee-appellant, M/s Sobha Marble and M/s Asha Ram Marble. Therein, in this regard, reliance was placed by the department, on the statement of Shri Naresh Agarwal recorded during survey on 18.01.2011.
That is how, summons were issued to Shri Sharad Hedda, Manager of the assessee-appellant. But, he did not attend those proceedings. Subsequently, letters were issued to Shri Sharad Hedda and Shri Manish Ultimately, on 23.03.2013, statement of Shri Sharad Hedda was recorded in presence of Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal, and the assessment proceedings were concluded by making addition of Rs. 28,71,656/- to the total income of the assessee-appellant, relating to the assessment year 2010-11.
However, as noticed above, admittedly, the assessee challenged the above said assessment order, relating to the assessment year 2010-11, and Learned CIT(A), Ajmer, confirmed the addition. That is how, the assessee challenged that impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2010-11 before Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur Benches.
Admittedly, in that matter relating to the assessment year 2010-11, following directions came to be issued by the Coordinate Bench to Learned CIT(A):-
“8.3 The next question that arises for consideration is who is rightful owner of the money so found deposited in the bank accounts and who should be finally assessed to tax in respect of said bank deposits. It is noted that the Revenue’s case rests on the statements of Shri Naresh Agarwal recorded during the course of survey and then subsequently during the course of impunged assessment Heda Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Kishangarh. proceedings, the statement of Shri Sharad Heda and the details of the amount received through bank account of Shri Naresh Agarwal on the basis of the photo copies produced by Shri Naresh Agarwal in the evening of 22.03.2013 on perusal of which the AO found that Heda Group received Rs 3,41,99,953 from the bank account of Shri Naresh Agarwal. In our view, these records of transaction of the bank accounts basis which the AO has determined the assessee’s company tax liability is a critical piece of evidence which can support and corroborate the statements so recorded. It is equally important to know the contents of these documents and how the AO has established the necessary nexus with the assessee company. Unfortunately, the records and paperbook submitted before us is silent on this and in absence of the same, we are unable to take a view in the matter solely basis the statements so recorded. Further, the ld AR has raised various contentions (as noted above) in terms of inconsistency in the statements of Shri Naresh Agarwal, the absence of nexus with the assessee company, the locus standi of Shri Sharad Heda and how the same cannot be relied upon and held against the assessee. In our view, what is relevant is that the statements should be read as a whole and any inconsistencies should be examined. Further independent investigation be carried out by the AO to determine the necessary nexus with the assessee company with the amounts so deposited in the bank accounts and the locus standi of shri Sharad Heda, the relationship and linkage with the promoters/directors and in the affairs of the assessee company before a final view is taken in the matter. In our view, there is not enough material on record for us to take a view in the matter and the matter deserves to be set-aside to the file of the ld CIT(A) to examine the same afresh. “ 7. Picking up the thread, as regards present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 17.12.2024, was passed by Learned CIT(A), relating to the assessment year 2009-10. Said order came to be passed after the above said directions were issued to Learned CIT(A), Ajmer, in the matter relating to the assessment year 2010-11, but in the said order, Learned CIT(A) did not keep in mind the above said directions to deal with the same issue involved in this matter as well.
“6.1 Ground No.1: In this ground the appellant has challenged the addition worth Rs. 29,90,683/- made by the AO as income from undisclosed sources. Survey action u/s.133A was conducted in the case Shri Naresh Agarwal. During the course of survey it was found that Shri Naresh Agarwal was collecting cash from various marble traders of Kishangarh and bogus entries were provided to various marble traders. The AO has annexed the detailed statement of Shri Naresh Agarwal during the time of survey. In reply to Question No.6 & 7 Shri Naresh Agarwal stated that cash has been received from M/s. Heda Marble and various other marbles companies and firms. Total cash received was Rs 8,97,20,477/-. Shri Naresh Agarwal had mentioned three parties. The AO divided 1/3 in the name of M/s. Heda Marbles. The amount comes to Rs.2,99.06,825/- The AO relying upon Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Anita Choudhary made addition of GP @10% worth Rs.29,90,683/-Hon. 6.1.1 Now before me in the appellate proceedings, the appellant filed written submission, the appellant has argued that it has not done any transaction with Shri Naresh Agarwal. It has been further mentioned that the diary sized by the Investigation Wing has mentioned word "Heda". It does not mean that it is the same Heda. I have gone through the various documents relied upon by the appellant in the written submission. The appellant has mentioned that Mr. Sharad Heda is not a Director or Partner of the Firm. The AO has clearly made out the case on Page No.27 of the assessment order that Mr. Sharad Heda used to regularly talk to Shri Naresh Agarwal. Mr. Sharad Heda had clearly accepted before the AO on 22.03.2013 that he was managing the affairs of M/s. Heda Group. The AO has relied upon the modus operandi mentioned by Shri Naresh Agarwal in the statement before Investigation Wing and the statement of Shri Sharad Heda. During the course of assessment proceedings, the CA of the appellant did the cross examination of Shri Naresh Agarwal also. In A.Y.2010-11, on identical issue, the CIT(A) Ajmer has confirmed the addition made by the AO. Hence, it is clear that the AO has provided sufficient opportunities to the appellant including cross examination of Shri Naresh Agarwal. In the written submission, all the issues raised by the AO and the Investigation Wing have not been challenged / controverted by the appellant. Hence, the addition of the AO is confirmed and the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”
Heda Marbles Pvt. Ltd. Kishangarh. 8. As noticed above, Learned CIT(A) passing the impugned order, referred to the addition made relating to the assessment year 2010-11 and observed that on identical issue, Learned CIT(A), Jaipur had confirmed the same. This goes to show that Learned CIT(A) was aware of the directions so already issued.
We are of the view that in the given situation, Learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi should have also taken into consideration, the above mentioned directions issued as regards the assessment year 2010-11, for effective adjudication of the identical issue, which arose in the matter pertaining to Assessment year 2009-10 as well. However, no such direction/point was considered by Learned CIT(A).
In the given situation, we find merit in the contention raised by Ld. AR for the appellant, which has not been opposed by Ld. DR for the department too, that the matter needs to be remitted to Learned CIT(A) for decision afresh, having regard to the directions already issued by the Coordinate bench, ITAT, Jaipur, while remitting the matter to Learned CIT(A), Ajmer, as regards the assessment year 2010-11.
Consequently, this appeal is disposed of, for statistical purpose and the matter is remitted to Learned CIT(A)for decision afresh, having regard to the directions already issued by the Coordinate bench, ITAT, Jaipur, while remitting the matter to Learned CIT(A), Ajmer, as regards the assessment year 2010-11, of course, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessment.
File be consigned to the record room after the needful is done by the office. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/09/2025.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼xxu xks;y½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (GAGAN GOYAL) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 25/09/2025 *Santosh आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Heda Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Kishangarh. 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2, Kishangarh. 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत