Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by two separate orders of first-appeal, both dated 19.03.2024 and both passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders, both dated 15.11.2019 and both passed by learned ITO- 3(2), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Years [“AY”] 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively, the assessee
Suresh Kumar Kejriwal & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 has filed the captioned twin appeals on the grounds mentioned in respective Appeal Memos (Form No. 36).
Ld. AR for assessee drew us to the assessment-orders passed by AO and demonstrated that the AO has made protective addition of Rs. 8,52,65,008/- in AY 2012-13 and Rs. 4,90,42,678/- in AY 2013-14. These protective additions relate to the deposits/credit entries in Bank A/cs in the name of M/s Pinnacle Enterprises, a proprietary concern run by Shri Pratik Kejriwal (son of assessee). Ld. AR submitted that the AO has made substantive additions in the hands of Shri Pratik Kejriwal and simultaneously protective additions in the hands of assessee. On a query by bench as to the status of substantive additions in the hands of Shri Pratik Kejriwal, Ld. AR submitted that to the best of his knowledge, the first- appeals of Shri Pratik Kejriwal are pending for disposal before CIT(A).
However, the CIT(A) has decided the first-appeals of present assessee upholding the protective additions. There was some deliberation on this issue in open court and ultimately the bench came to a conclusion to restore these appeals also at the level of CIT(A) since the protective additions are very much connected to the substantive additions. Furthermore, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of assessee, although for non-prosecution, and merely upheld the orders of AO without making apt adjudication in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason
Suresh Kumar Kejriwal & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 for the decision.”, therefore also the present matters are fit for restoration to CIT(A). We accordingly restore these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication of these matters after or alongwith disposal of appeals of Mr. Pratik Kejriwal. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
There is a filing delay in both of these appeals. The assessee has filed following affidavit for condonation of delay:
Page 3 of 7 Suresh Kumar Kejriwal & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 4 of 7 Suresh Kumar Kejriwal & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 5 of 7 Suresh Kumar Kejriwal & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 6 of 7 Suresh Kumar Kejriwal & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14
Considering the averments made in affidavit and in view of the peculiar fact that the present assessee’s matters involve protective additions in respect of substantive additions made in the hands of another assessee Shri Pratik Kejriwal and hence the present matters need to be decided after considering the outcome of substantive additions, the delay is condoned.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 17/11/2025