SANGHVI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. DCIT 4(1), INDORE

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 as and by way second appeal.

The assessee is aggrieved by order bearing Number

ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1067233200(1) dated 01.08.2024

passed by Ld. CIT(A), passed U/s 250 of the Act which is

hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant Page 1 of 6

Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 662/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Assessment Year is 2018-19 and the corresponding previous year

period is from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018.

2.1 That the assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing

of flour and rice, Power, energy and providing other service.

2.2 That by an assessment order bearing number

ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1032744583(I) which is dated

30.04.2021 the total income of the assessee was computed as

Rs.23,03,53,380/- against total income determined u/s 143(1) of

Rs.10,74,61,370/-. Sum of Rs.32,69,804/- was disallowed on

account of property tax of earlier period. The said assessment

order is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Assessment

Order” which was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act.

2.3 That the assessee being Aggrieved by the Impugned

Assessment order (supra) preferred first appeal u/s 246A of the

Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned Order” has

dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Page 2 of 6

Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 662/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Order”

has filed this present appeal before this Tribunal as and by way

of Second Appeal under the Act and has raised following grounds

of appeal against the Impugned Order in form No.36 which are as

under:

“1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte even when the assessee had filed an adjournment before him asking for next date in the appeal filed before him. The order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is therefore wrong and uncalled for. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT-NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance as made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 32,69,804/- towards out of the property tax expenses by holding that the same pertains to earlier years even when the said expenses have been crystalized during the year under consideration only hence the same are allowable in nature. The addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is therefore neither legal nor proper and the same requires to be deleted. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT-NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance as made by the Ld.AO of Rs. 32,69,804/- towards the property tax expenses incurred by it even when it was submitted that the said expenses pertain to the earlier years however the same is otherwise allowable as per the provisions of Sec. 43B of the Act. Thus the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is therefore neither legal nor proper and the same requires to be deleted.”

Page 3 of 6

Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 662/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 3. Record of Hearing

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

18.03.2025 when Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee

appeared before us and interalia contended that “Impugned

Order” is passed in violation of the Principles of natural justice

and that therefore, the Impugned order is illegal and bad in law.

The “Impugned order” should be set aside and the matter should

be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on

denovo basis. The Ld. AR fairly stated that while it is true that

office of Ld. CIT(A) had sent number of notices as and by way of

opportunity to the assessee but since these notices come into

month of May, June and July 2024. The assessee’s counsel who

was a practising CA could not appear as he was overburdened

with work relating to filing of returns of various assessee

including Tax Audits and for want of time he could not represent

his clients. the assessee herein. Under these circumstances Ld.

AR prayed for lenient view to be taken and if an opportunity is

not offered by Ld. CIT(A) he would participate in first appellate

proceedings.

Page 4 of 6

Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 662/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 3.2 Per contra Ld.DR did not had serious objections to the

contentions canvassed by the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR however has

left it to this Tribunal to take final call according to law.

4.1 We have perused the record of the case and have examined

the rival contentions. We are of the considered view that at times

particularly in the month of June & July in a year Professional

like CA are busy lot hence some minor leeway should be given.

Under these facts we deem fit and proper to set aside the

“Impugned order” as Ld. AR (CA) has undertaken to participate

in first appeal before Ld. CIT(A).

5.1 In the premises “Impugned order” is set aside as and by

way of remand back to the file of CIT(A) on denovo basis with a

direction to dispose off first appeal on merits as is mandated by

law. The assessee is directed to effectively participate in first

appeal and not to seek any unnecessary adjournments as

undertaken.

Page 5 of 6

Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 662/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 5.2. In result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 19.03.2025.

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 19 /03/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 6 of 6