YASH COKE,MEGHALAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

PDF

ITA 98/GTY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 August 2025AY 2021-22Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), where he could not succeed basically for the reason that he could not make a presentation of facts before the Ld. CIT(A), as recorded on pages 2 and 3 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) has basically relied on the findings of the Ld. AO in passing an adverse order against the assessee.4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 12,86,61,319/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained expenditure related to purchases. This addition was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] without allegedly providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present its facts, relying solely on the AO's findings. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, citing denial of natural justice and challenging the addition.

Held

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with the expectation that the assessee would actively participate in the opportunities for hearing provided by the CIT(A).

Key Issues

Whether the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice due to lack of opportunity to the assessee; and the validity of the addition under Section 69C for unexplained purchases taxed under Section 115BBE.

Sections Cited

250, 143(3), 144B, 69C, 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 Yash Coke, Vill- Shallang, Opp United Bank of India, West Khasi Hills, Shillong - 793126 [PAN: AACFY4845M] .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati - 781005 ..................................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : J.P. Gupta, FCA Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 12.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 21.08.2025

ORDER

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

In this case, the appeal arises from order dated 15.04.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has passed a detailed order through which an addition of Rs. 12,86,61,319/- has been made u/s 69C of the Act, on account of alleged failure to explain the source of funds for expenditure towards certain purchases.

Yash Coke 1.2 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A), where he could not succeed basically for the reason that he could not make a presentation of facts before the Ld. CIT(A), as recorded on pages 2 and 3 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) has basically relied on the findings of the Ld. AO in passing an adverse order against the assessee.

1.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds:

“1. That the order dated 15/04/2025 passed U/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law as well as on the facts of the case in upholding the order dated 13/12/2022 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B.

2. That the CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 without providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant and as such the order is bereft of natural justice is liable to be deleted in full.