YASH COKE,MEGHALAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI
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
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA)
SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 98/GTY/2025 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: 1. 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.
I.T.A. No. 98/GTY/2025 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. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case for upholding the order passed by the AO and for addition of Rs. 12,86,61,319/- towards unexplained purchases u/s. 69C and taxing the same u/s. 115BBE. The same may kindly be deleted. 4. That the appellant craves leave to submit any other ground/s on or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Right at the outset, the Ld. AR mentioned that the request for adjournment before the Ld. CIT(A) were not accepted and an adverse order has been passed without affording appropriate opportunity of being heard. It was also averred that the assessee has a good case on merit and deserves another chance to present the facts.
2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and stated that he would have no objection in case the matter is to be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A), since a great deal of fact finding was already done at the level of Ld. AO.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that in the interest of natural justice
I.T.A. No. 98/GTY/2025 Yash Coke the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is expected to be alert to opportunities given by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing in his case.
With these remarks, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 21.08.2025
Sd/- Sd/- [Manomohan Das] [Sanjay Awasthi] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21.08.2025 AK, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR)
//True copy// By order
Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
I.T.A. No. 98/GTY/2025 Yash Coke
