JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

6. The exparte dismissal order order passed by the CIT(A)-NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) without even looking at the adjournment application is in complete violation of principal of natural justice by holding that "none appeared on the date of hearing on 22.1.202" when the appellant had duly filed request for adjournment on 20.1.2025 7. The confirming of the addition u/s 69C of Rs.1,82,05,040/-holding that the assessee has taken only accommodation entry of genuine purchase by alleging as bogus purchase/ transactions is bad in law and facts.

8. Not considering the ground of the assesove that not exercising property the vested powers of Civil Court in the Ld. AO inter alia for compelling the production of books of accounts and other documents u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and facts.

. 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 2.1 Apropos grounds appeal (supra), it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte by dismissing the appeal of the assessee as the assessee has not even filed a written submission in support of its appeal despite several opportunities. The narration so made by the ld.CIT(E) in is order is reproduced as under:- ‘’5.1 Decision: I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record, in respect of this ground of appeal, as brought out in the assessment order During the assessment proceedings, AO observed that the assessee had assessee engaged in bogus purchase of Rs. 1,82,05,040/-. The assessee failed to give a reply and provide any required details. Hence, the A.O. completed the assessment and passed order u/s. 147/144B of the Income-tax Act dated 29.03.2023 Assessing total Income at Rs. 2,15,71,990/- 5.2 It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during the appellate proceedings a final opportunity was given to the assessee to submit written submission by 22.01.2025, the appellant has not furnished any evidence in support of its grounds of appeal. The appellant has challenged the addition in the different grounds of appeal. However, the appellant has not furnished any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal challenging the addition. The appellant has also not submitted any copy of its written submission or documentary evidence filed during the assessment proceedings. The onus lies the appellant to support any claim by bringing in cogent documentary evidence but the appellant has not even filed a written submission in support of its grounds of appeal despite several opportunities given as detailed in the preceding paras. In absence of any written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal, I have no basis to take a contrary view in the appellate proceedings as I have no reason to interfere with the assessment order. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order of Assessing In the result, the appeal is dismissed.’’ 6.

2.2 During the course of hearing, the main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order but he had not adjudicated the appeal on merit and also no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing had been allowed. Hence, the ld. AR prayed to restore the appeal to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as the assessee is deprived off contesting the case before him. 2.3 To support of his contentions, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the written submission as well as case laws paper book . ‘’Sub: Groundwise written submission alongwith statement of facts. This submission is in connection with the above referred appeal preferred by the Assessee against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072584754(1) on 27.01.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. In support of Grounds of Appeal, the Assessee is furnishing herewith Ground wise written submission, along with supporting documentary evidence(s) and/or documents as specified in the attached Annexure. The Ground-wise submission is as under:-

1. GOA 1: Not considering the ground of the assessee that without rejecting the books of account u/s 145 the addition made by rejecting purchases is bad in law and facts. The submission in this regard is as under:-

1. Your honour, the Ld. AO has held that purchases amounting to Rs.1,82,05,040/- from M/s Impex Ferro Tech Ltd is treated as Bogus Purchase & has made an addition thereon without rejecting Books of Accounts. The AR places reliance on the decision held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Yunus Haji Ibrahim Fazalwala (S) v. Income Tax Officer vide Case No. Tax Appeal No. 701 of 2015 dated Feb 16, 2016 (Kindly refer Paper Book Page No. 1-8) wherein in point no. 14 (Paper book page no. 7) the court held as under:-

. 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR Thus, treating purchases worth Rs. 1,82,05,040/- as bogus purchases without rejecting books of accounts is bad in law & facts.

2. Kindly allow to submit GOA 2 and GOA 4 to GOA 6 together. GOA 2: “That the order framed by the CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is bad in law and on facts as the CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits.

GOA 4: That the Ld. CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal in liminee without deciding the appeal on merit on the basis of detailed Grounds of Appeal as well as Statement of Facts filed even if the appeal was to be decided ex-parte. Neither adjournment application rejected, nor any further date given and also no communication informing the fate of the adjournment application communicated to appellant, thus, no proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing has been allowed by CIT(A).

GOA 5: That the Ld. CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal exparite ignoring the fact that the assessee had duly applied for the adjournment hence the order of dismissal of appeal for non appearance is against the principal of natural justice.

GOA 6: The exparite dismissal order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) without even looking at the adjournment application is in complete violation of principal of natural justice by holding that "none appeared on SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE

1. The assessee was served a notice of hearing on 16.1.2025 (as enclosed in paper book page no. 1 to 4). The AR of the assessee furnished an application of adjournment on dated 20.1.2025 vide acknowledgement no. 831274651200125 alongwith the request that due to marriage of son of the AR kindly grant the adjournment. (as enclosed in paper book page no. 5 to 9). The Ld. CIT (Appeals) without considering the adjournment application passed the order holding erroneously that during the appellate proceedings a final opportunity was given to the assessee to submit written submission by 22.01.2025, the appellant has not furnished any evidence in support of its grounds of appeal and therefore dismissed the appeal. Neither Adjournment was rejected nor granted and without considering passed the aforesaid order and is therefore bad in law and facts.

2. In the given case Assessee had initially submitted Grounds of Appeal

& Statement of facts to the Ld. CIT(A) being aggrieved of order passed by the Ld. AO. The statement of the facts (Kindly see in paper book page no. 63 to 67) submitted with the appeals in form

35. (Kindly see in paper book page no. 55 to 67) are as under:-

3. Your honour, is requested kindly not to restore this issue with the Ld. CIT Appeal reason being that the Ld. CIT Appeals was having all the detailed submission on records. The onus was on the Ld. CIT Appeals which was not discharged by the Ld. CIT Appeals and passes the order without any adverse inference on the aforesaid submission and therefore not allowing appeal is bad in law and facts. Kindly not allow the second round.

3. GOA 3 :-That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. Kindly allow to submit during hearing.

Kindly allow to submit GOA 7 to GOA 9 together.

. 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR i. “the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri. Arun Kumar J. Muchhala [ITA 363 of 2015] ii. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs La Medical (250 ITR 575) iii. Kaveri Rice Mills, (157 ITBA/ AST/S/147/2022-23/1051546840(1)Taxman 376) iv. ITAT, Bombay Bench in the case of M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (5535/Mumbai/2007). v. N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat) N.K. Proteins Ltd. (earlier known as N.K. Industries Ltd.) Vs CIT has been confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP(C) No. 769 of 2017. vi. ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. The said decision was confirmed by Gujarat High Court as well.

Hence as per Ld. AO finding the turnover of M/s Impex Ferro Tech Limited during the relevant financial year was of Rs. 133.41 Crores.

. 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 9. The Ld. AO issued notice u/s 148 and in response to the same the assessee filed its Return of Income. The Ld. AO issued various notices u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) to verify the aforesaid purchases. In compliance the Assessee submitted bank statement, sale and purchase, bills issued by the company M/s Impex Ferro Tech Limited. Further, the company has submitted date wise purchase bills from M/s Impex Ferro Tech Limited. Thereafter the Ld. AO issued SCN u/s 142(1) vide DIN:ITBA/AST/F/147(SCN)/2022-23/1051119360(1) on dated 22.03.2023. Kindly see in paper book page no. 99-102. The assessee furnished the response Kindly see in paper book page no. 103-139. The relevant scanned portion is as under:-

. 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 10. The Ld. AO verified the aforesaid purchased items from M/s Impex Ferro Tech Limited (Paper book page no. 107-114) is 203 M.Ton at the purchase cost of Rs. 1,54,28,000. and the same material was exported (Paper book page no. 115-121) , Payment made to the supplier and realization from exports. The assessee made again compliances on 27.3.2023 (Paper book page no. 126-139). Relevant scanned portion is as under:-

. 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 11. The Ld. AO had no adverse inference on the aforesaid submission. The Ld. AO has drawn no adverse inference on the aforementioned purchases made & its export thereon. The AO has failed to undertake any enquiry to establish that the said purchases are bogus. The assessee has brought on record documentary evidences to establish the genuineness of the purchase transactions. Further the payments for the said purchases were done through proper banking channels and there is no evidence brought on record by the Ld. AO to establish that the said payments were routed back to the assessee. Furthermore, the sales have not been doubted by the Ld. AO as the assessee has furnished documentary evidences of sales too. The allegation of the Revenue that the purchases are bogus is countered by the fact that the purchased items have been sold and the assessee has received the money equivalent to the items sold. Your honour the assessee furnished Audit Report 3CA and 3CD, Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account with complete annexure. The relevant part is as under:- 1 Audited Balance Sheet, P & L A/c and 3CA and 3CD Audit Report for the year ended 012- 31.3.2016 023 2 Audited Balance Sheet, P & L A/c and 3CA and 3CD Audit Report for the year ended 024- 31.3.2017 037 3 Audited Balance Sheet, P & L A/c and 3CA and 3CD Audit Report for the year ended 038- 31.3.2018 053

. 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR Hence your honour, the Ld. AO only three notices during almost one year and out of three notices two notices were issued just before 10 days of the assessment. Hence your honour not providing opportunity of cross examine is bad in law and facts.

A. Nath International Sales vs. UOI, AIR 1992 (Del) 295). The same is appearing in the paper book page no. 41-48. The relevant scaned portion of the decision in the paper book page no. 48 second last para is as under:-

Hence your honour the aforesaid decision in our case is not applicable as in that case as the cross- examine was requested to elicit the truth as to which of the two inspection report is genuine whereas the Hon’ble High Court hold that there is no difference in both the reports on the crucial point of filing of TRW's works test certificate. Whereas our case is entirely difference as the assessee request is to elicit the truth of alleged bogus purchase.

B. State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122) The same is appearing in the paper book page no. 49-64. Your honour can verify that this case is entirely on different circumstances. Hence not applicable in the case of the assessee. C. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) Your honour can verify that this case is entirely on different circumstances. Hence not applicable in the case of the assessee. D. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) In the instant case, the estimation of sales has not been made solely on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded during the survey. It is based on the entire facts relating to the business of the assessee which includes location of the shop, past history, various defects in the books of account and the statements of the persons available on the spot during the survey. Thus, it cannot be said that the estimation is solely on the basis of the statements of the witnesses recorded on the spot. The conclusion arrived at by the assessing authority and modified by the Appellate Commissioner is based on the material on record. The finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Tribunal. The sufficiency or adequacy of evidence necessary for reaching the conclusion of fact does not give rise to a question of law much less a substantial question of law.

. 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR Thus, no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The same is appearing in the paper book page no. 65-66. Your honour can verify that this case is entirely on different circumstances. Hence not applicable in the case of the assessee. E. CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H)Your honour can verify that this case is entirely on different circumstances. Hence not applicable in the case of the assessee. Hence, your honour, It remains undisputed that the assessee was never provided an opportunity to cross examine such persons though he specifically asked for such cross examination. On the other hand, the burden was sought to be shifted on the assessee by the A.O. It is clear case where the principle of natural justice stand violated and the additions made under section 69C therefore are unsustainable in the eye of law.

14. Your honour, the Ld. AO stated that it is necessary to mention here that the assessee can’t take the plea that the correspondence sales are there. In this regard, reliance of various courts can placed by Ld. AO are as under:

A. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri. Arun Kumar J. Muchhala [ITA 363 of 2015] (Kindly see in paper book page no. 70-79). During the course of hearing reliance was placed on behalf of the Revenue upon the judicial precedent in the case of Arunkumar J. Muchhala (supra). On perusal of the same it emerges that, in the case, the assessee had failed to file confirmations/documents in support of the transaction being scrutinized in those cases. Whereas in the present case, the Assessee has filed documents/details. The assessee furnished downloaded from GST portal the complete details of M/s IMPEX FERRO TECH LIMITED (Kindly see in paper book page no. 88-94), downloaded from MCA portal for existence of company (Kindly see in paper book page no. 113-114) and goods weighment certificate cum bill (Kindly see in paper book page no. 128-130). Complete address and all details were available on record with the turnover of the company. In fact, the existence of M/s IMPEX FERRO TECH LIMITED was not only in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer from the day one but even the same was in the knowledge of Investigation Wing of the I. T. Deptt. who during the course of post search investigation made investigation. Hence the assessee discharged the primary onus cast upon in terms of Section 69C of the Act. Your honour, Assessing Officer was required to bring on record any material/details to controvert the claim of the Assessee and/or to challenge the veracity of the documents filed by the Assessee. The Revenue has failed to do so. Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 8 wherein the ld. AO confirmed that M/s IMPEX FERRO TECH LIMITED filed ITR and mentioned the names of directors and further the Ld. AO made the analysis of the Balance sheet for FY 2016- 17 and 2017-18. The Ld. AO had no adverse inference thereon including the turnover for the relevant year of Rs. 133.41 Crores out of which the assessee purchased only of Rs.1,82,05,040/- . B. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs La Medical (250 ITR 575) Your honour, the reliance placed upon the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs La . 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR Medica (2001) 250 ITR 575 (Delhi) by the AO was distinguishable on facts (Kindly see in paper book page no. 80-83). In the aforesaid case the ld. AO proved the non existence of alleged bogus purchase supplier whereas in our case the existence is proved. The allegations that assessee could not explain the actual address of M/s IMPEX FERRO TECH LIMITED is completely baseless. At no point of time, the assessee company expressed its ignorance about the said company. The assessee furnished downloaded from GST portal the complete details of M/s IMPEX FERRO TECH LIMITED (Kindly see in paper book page no. 88-94), downloaded from MCA portal for existence of company (Kindly see in paper book page no. 113-114) and goods weighment certificate cum bill (Kindly see in paper book page no. 128-130). Complete address and all details were available on record with the turnover of the company. In fact, the existence of M/s IMPEX FERRO TECH LIMITED was not only in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer from the day one but even the same was in the knowledge of Investigation Wing of the I. T. Deptt. who during the course of post search investigation made investigation. Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 8 wherein the ld. AO confirmed that M/s IMPEX FERRO TECH LIMITED filed ITR and mentioned the names of directors and further the Ld. AO made the analysis of the Balance sheet for FY 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Ld. AO had no adverse inference thereon including the turnover for the relevant year of Rs. 133.41 Crores out of which the assessee purchased only of Rs.1,82,05,040/-. Hence, the existence of M/s IMPEX FERRO TECH LIMITED was not in dispute at any point of time as alleged by the Ld. Assessing Officer. C. Kaveri Rice Mills, (157 Taxman 376) Your honour, the reliance placed upon the judgement of the aforesaid case by the Ld. AO was distinguishable on facts (Kindly see in paper book page no. 84-85).It was the case of Bogus purchase and bogus sales. Whereas in the case of assessee there is no adverse inference on export sales. D. ITAT, Bombay Bench in the case of M/s. Lifeline Drugs and Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. (5535/Mumbai/2007) Kindly see in paper book Page no. 86-96. Your honour, the reliance placed upon the judgement of the aforesaid case by the Ld. AO was distinguishable on facts. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lifeline Drugs and Intermediates (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 5535 (Mum.) of 2007, dated 30-4-2010], on the finding of fact that the supplier stated that he was only providing accommodation entries and was not making actual sales, cash was withdrawn immediately after depositing cash in the bank account and paid back to the purchaser after deducting commission of 1%. Whereas in our case no evidence of receipt of cash paid by cheque for purchase. E. N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat) N.K. Proteins Ltd. (earlier known as N.K. Industries Ltd.) Vs CIT has been confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP(C) No. 769 of 2017. ((Kindly see in paper book page no. 97-101). Your honour, the reliance placed upon the judgement of the aforesaid case by the Ld. AO was distinguishable on facts. The facts in the case are that the that assessee company is involved in trading and speculation of castor seed and also engaged in export of castor oil and castor oil derivatives. During the course of search proceedings at the office premises of NKPL, blank signed cheque books and vouchers of number of concerns were found. Endorsed blank cheques of NKPL by these concerns were also found from the office premises of NKPL wherein the endorsement was on the back of the cheques. Blank bill books, letter heads and vouchers of these concerns were found and seized from the factory premises of NKPL. Whereas in our case there is no such finding.

. 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR F. ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. 1976 Your honour, the reliance placed upon the judgement of the aforesaid case by the Ld. AO was distinguishable on facts (Kindly see in paper book page no. 102-143).It was the case of Bogus purchase and Payments against the various purchases were shown against the bogus suppliers through crossed cheques. Whereas all the crossed cheques given to these different 33 suppliers were invariably collected through bank account of M/s Pooja Traders, Junagadh, being bank account No. 71082. Shri M. M. Vaghela, Prop. of M/s Pooja Traders, in his statement dt. 1st Jan., 1992 submitted that his bank account was opened with the help of one of the directors of the company and that he is doing business only for M/s Vijay Proteins Ltd. (the assessee). He accepted the summons only after permission of Shri Rameshbhai V. Damodia, one of the directors of the company. Many suppliers were not available at the given address. That shows that they did not exist at all at the addresses given in their respective purchase vouchers invoices. Few who were found available at the given addresses did not confirm the transactions reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee or have denied to have sent any goods to the assessee. The suppliers were not produced before the AO (Page no. 112). Whereas in the case of assessee there is no such finding. Hence, your honour all the case law relied by the Ld. AO are distinguishable on facts and therefore bad in law and facts.

15. The assessee during the course of hearing, has drawn attention to the voluminous details furnished before the lower authorities in respect of the impugned purchases. The assessee also highlighted the facts that complete quantitative details are maintained by the assessee and the Ld. AO has not found any defect in the maintenance of books of accounts of the assessee which are duly audited. As per the assessee, no defect has been found or pointed out in the evidence filed with respect to the impugned purchases.

18. Dy. Cit, Circle, Patiala, Patiala vs Bhawani Industries Pvt. Ltd., 178-200 178-200 Mandi... on 9 June, 2025 . 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 2.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 2.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company in the name of M/s. Jajoo Rashmi Refractories Pvt. Ltd. which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and import & export of Ferro Alloys, Ramming Mass, Quartz and Refractories items.The assessee had filed its original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29-09-18 declaring total taxable income of Rs.33,66,950/-. The main sources of income of the assessee have been shown in the ITR from business and profession. During the assessment proceedings, the AO had reason to believe that the assessee is engaged in bogus purchase of Rs.1,82,05,040/- Subsequently a notice u/s 148of the Act dated 29-03-22 was issued alongwith various others notices. The assessee failed to give a reply and provide any required details. Hence, the AO completed the assessment and passed order u/s 147/148 of the Act dated 29-03-2023 making addition of Rs.1,82,05,040/- in the hands of the assessee as bogus purchase. The relevant narration as made by the AO in his order is reproduced as under:- ‘’In view of the above, the purchase made of Rs.1,82,050,040/- from M/s. Impex Ferro Tech Ltd. during the year under consideration is treated as bogus purchase/ transactions and the assessee has taken only accommodation entry. Therefore a . 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR variation of Rs.1,82,05,040/- on account of bogus purchase is treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C and is proposed and added to the total income of the assesee for the year under consideration and for this addition, tax is being charged u/s 115BBE of the Act.Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee did not adduce any written submission or documentary evidence before the ld. CIT(A) to counter the assessment order. The grievance of the ld. AR of the assessee is that he had submitted an adjournment application dated 20-1-2025 vide acknowledgement no. 831274651200125 before the ld. CIT (A)alongwith request that due to marriage of his son, he may be granted adjournment but the adjournment was not granted by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that he may be given one more chance to contest the case before the ld.CIT(A) and adduce the documents / details / written submission to counter the assessment order so that the dispute in question could be settled. The Bench feels that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity to contest the case before the ld.CIT(A) and hence, the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for afresh adjudication with the direction to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to theassessee. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain . 209/JPR/2025 JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 2.6 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/08/2025 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBkSM+ deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/08/2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- M/s. Jajoo Rashmi Refractories Ltd., Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ( By order,

सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत