MAYANK RAGHUWANSHI,SEVANI MALAVA vs. ITO-1, ITARSI, HOSHANGABAD

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for

sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by

the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-

25/1069853973(1) dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)

Page 1 of 8

Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The

relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 and the corresponding

previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017.

2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s. 144

of the Act, the assesee’s total income exigible to tax was

computed and assessed at Rs.7,86,000/-. On substantive basis

and Rs. 9,00,000/- on protective basis. The assessee has not

filed his return of income. That the aforesaid assessment order

is dated 26.12.2019 which is hereinafter referred to as the

“impugned assessment order”.

2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid

“impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of

the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has

dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons

stated therein. The core ground was that despite opportunities

afforded by Ld. A.O the assessee has remained non compliant

during original assessment proceedings consequently basis

material on record Ld. A.O proceeded to pass the “impugned

assessment order” u/s 144 and in 1st appellate proceedings the

Page 2 of 8

Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 assessee has also produced additional evidence Under Rule

46A but has failed to justify any material ingredients of Rule

46A by virtue of which additional evidence could be taken on

record.

2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order”

has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and

has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the

“impugned order” which are as under:-

“1. The Ld AO was not justified in passing the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled.

Page 3 of 8

Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 3. Record of Hearing

3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on

25.06.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee

has placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing

pages from 1 to 22 and so also an application Under Rule 29 of

the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 from pages 23

to 31. It was contended by the Ld. AR that the “impugned

order” is illegal, bad in law and not proper. It is passed in

violation of the principles of natural justice. It was stated that

the Ld. CIT(A) without any application of mind and without any

justifiable reason has not only upheld the “impugned

assessment order” passed u/s 144 of the Act but

simultaneously has rejected the application for additional

evidence Under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. It was also

submitted that the Ld. A.O issued notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the

Act wherein the assessee was called upon to file Return of

Income instead the assessee filed submission and did not file

Income Tax Return. It was contended that the assessee and his

family members have few accounts with banks which belongs to

him and his father. The assessee and his family members

Page 4 of 8

Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 including father are agriculturist by profession and that they

own agricultural land on which they are doing agriculture.

During the 1st appellate stage they had produced and submitted

certain evidence/additional evidence and Ld. CIT(A) in

“impugned order” has erroneously held that no explanation in

law has been submitted as to why additional evidence and/or

new evidence should not be entertained. It was contended that

Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly interpreted Rule 46A and as a result of

which evidences have remained untested. Therefore before this

tribunal an elaborate paper book and so also an application

Under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963

too, have been filed to admit the additional evidence at this stage

of proceedings. Per contra Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of

the revenue has contended that the “impugned assessment

order” is u/s 144 of the Act and further now there is also an

application Under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Rules. Further a part of income is on protective basis. Hence

it would be in fitness of things that the matter be send back to

Ld. A.O for fresh assessment order wherein the whole issue

including evidences now produced could be well analysed and

Page 5 of 8

Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 appreciated. In brief Ld. DR fairly stated that let there be a fair

computation of income and assessment basis material and

evidence instead of best assessment by Ld. A.O as income is

required to be computed according to law. The Ld. A.O is an

appropriate officer who would weigh and appreciate the evidence

and shall do proper verification too.

4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the

proprietery of the “impugned order” basis records of the case

and rival contentions canvassed before us.

4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as

presented to this Tribunal by both Ld. AR & Ld. DR to determine

the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by

following due process .

4.3 We observe on bare simple perusal of the “impugned

order” that the Ld. CIT(A) has simply upheld the “impugned

assessment order” which was u/s 144 of the Act and further

has rejected the application of additional evidence Under Rule

46A. The Ld. CIT(A) in quasi judicial capacity is required to

Page 6 of 8

Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 adjudge and adjudicate at least the first appeal on meritorious

grounds as “impugned assessment order” was admittedly u/s

144 of the Act. We are of the considered opinion that the first

appellate authority must adjudge and adjudicate at least the

first appeal on merits as determination of correct income exigible

to tax by due process is must under the Act and even otherwise

as no tax can be levied and collected save and except according

to law by following due process. Even the Ld. DR for revenue too

has opined during the course of the hearing that Ld. A.O is right

and competent authority in the facts and circumstances of the

case to carry out due verification basis material/evidence on

record.

4.4 We are further of the considered view that now since

assessee has filed an application for additional evidence before us

(supra) therefore it would be just fair and convenient and in the

interest of ends of justice that the matter be examined afresh by

Ld. A.O.

4.5 In view of the aforesaid we set aside the “impugned order”

as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld. A.O on denovo

basis.

Page 7 of 8

Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 5. Order

5.1 In the premises drawn up by us we set aside the

“impugned order” and remand back to Ld. A.O to pass a fresh

order on denovo basis.

5.2 In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 30.06.2025.

Sd/- Sd/-

(B.M. BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Indore िदनांक / Dated : 30/06/2025 Dev/Sr. PS

Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 8 of 8