Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19, where an addition of Rs. 3,39,56,500 was made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act for unexplained expenditure. The assessee claimed that sufficient opportunity was not provided and proper inquiries were not made, and that they had sold refined oil and not purchased goods from the alleged party.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to file requisite submissions/documents before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions, leading to an ex-parte order. However, considering the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made under Section 69C was justified without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and adequate inquiries. Whether the appeal should be remanded for de novo adjudication.
Sections Cited
69C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order – 23/06/2025
O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 12/11/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2018–19 by raising the following grounds:–
2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:–
2 CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.18/Nag./2025
The Ld. A.O. and the Hon. CIT(A) erred in passing the assessment and appellate orders without providing sufficient opportunity to Appellant.
The Ld. A.O. failed to make proper inquiries, even though the appellant had denied any transactions with the party with the said PAN.
3. The Ld. A.O. and the Hon. CIT(A) miserably failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had sold refined oil and had not purchased any goods from the alleged party. 4. The Ld. A.O erred in making addition and the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,39,56,500/- U/S.69C of the Income Tax Act.”
2. The assessee admittedly except seeking adjournment on three occasions / notices issued by the learned CIT(A) failed to file the requisite submissions / documents and accordingly in the constrained circumstances, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order affirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in making the addition of ` 3,39,56,500, on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). Thus, the issue involved remained unadjudicated in its right perspective in a holistic manner. It is also a fact that assessment proceedings were partially carried out during the COVID–19 period. The learned Authorised Representative (for short "the A.R.") humbly prayed that the order may be remanded back for de novo adjudication.
3 CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.18/Nag./2025
Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that though the impugned order passed is an ex–parte order, but the learned CIT(A) has decided the issues on the basis of material available on record and in the context of issues involved wherein the learned CIT(A) observed vide Para–4.5 and 4.6 of his order that the issues involved are adjudicated in the absence of document / evidences and on the basis of material available on record. The purchases made from Shri Naresh Israni were held to be bogus in nature by the Assessing Officer. Further, the learned CIT(A) has also observed that the assessee failed to discharge his onus cast on him to prove the genuineness of the purchases. It is manifest that there was no participation by the assessee before the appellate authority. These fact reveals that the issue remained to be examined in its right perspective and in judicious manner and, therefore, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, this Bench is inclined to restore the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. Suffice to say that the learned CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file the relevant submissions/documents which would essentially be required by the learned CIT(A). It is clarified that, in case of subsequent default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
4 CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.18/Nag./2025
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/06/2025