Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an ITR for AY 2018-19, which was later reopened under section 147 to investigate alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.22.61 Crores. The assessment was completed with a total income of Rs. 28.19 Crores, against which the assessee appealed to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to repeated non-compliance by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance before the CIT(A) but deemed it proper to provide one last opportunity. The matter is set aside and remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within 15 days. If the assessee fails to comply again, the CIT(A) is at liberty to decide the grounds based on available records.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on the merits of additions for bogus purchases under sections 69/115BBE and the validity of assessment reopening under sections 147/148.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 148, 69, 115BBE, 145
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA
PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, Ahmedabad – 12, [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], dated 25.11.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 in the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 20.02.2019 disclosing income of Rs.1,19,05,140/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, to examine the bogus purchase of Rs.22,61,75,832/-. The Navkar Urbanstructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT, AY-2018-19 2 assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.03.2023 at total income of Rs. 28,19,74,263/-.
Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal.
The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an Ex parte order dismissing the appeal without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s 148 of the 1.T.Act, 1961 only on the basis of dissemination report and information that the assessee has claimed expenses for alleged bogus purchases from Sarvada Marketing Pvt. Ltd. which is not correct and hence notice issued based on incorrect facts, doubts and suspicion is illegal and bad in law hence the same should be quashed. .
3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the IT. Act, 1961 based on illegal notice requires to be cancelled
4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.27.00,69,123/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the purchases from M/s. Blue Sea Commodities as alleged unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT. Act 1961 and taxing the same applying the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. .
The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs 27.00.69.123/- made by the Assessing Officer for the purchases when the same has already been considered Navkar Urbanstructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT, AY-2018-19 3 while computing the total income at Rs.1,19,05,140/-as per return of income filed on 30.11.2022. Hence this results in taxing the same twice.
The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in making additions without rejecting the audited books accounts of the appellant u/s.145 of the Act and without pointing out any specific defect therein.
The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in making additions for the purchases holding the same as non genuine when the sales in audited books of accounts have been accepted by him as genuine.
8. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal.
5. Shri Aseem L Thakkar, the Ld. A.R submitted at the outset that no compliance could be made before the Ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, he had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. He, therefore, requested that another opportunity may be allowed to the assessee by setting aside the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
6. Per contra, Shri Alpesh Parmar, the Ld. CIT-DR, supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). He, however, had no objection if the matter was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for allowing another opportunity to the assessee.
7. We have considered the request of the assessee. It is found that the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed as many as 13 opportunities to the assessee. The assessee had sought adjournment on these occasions and thus was well aware of the on-going proceeding before the Ld. CIT(A), still no compliance was made before him. The assessee has failed to explain the reason for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, deem it Navkar Urbanstructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT, AY-2018-19 4 proper to impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee which should be deposited to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Subject to the payment of cost, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow one more opportunity to the assessee and thereafter adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of set aside proceeding. In case the assessee does not make compliance, the Ld. CIT(A) will have liberty to adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merits on the basis of materials available on record.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 20/02/2026 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 20th February, 2026 Neelesh True Copy आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार