SHIVALAYA ENGINEERING WORKS,MANDIDEEP vs. ITO, BHOPAL
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their first appeal. The assessment order was passed u/s 147 rws 144B of the Act, computing the total income at Rs. 30,19,970/-. The assessee had originally filed their return at Rs. 19,52,800/-.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to appear on multiple hearing dates and did not provide any submissions, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, the Tribunal also decided to adjudicate the grounds on merits.
Key Issues
The appeal was filed against the dismissal of the first appeal by the CIT(A). The core issue was the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeal before the tribunal, leading to its dismissal on grounds of non-prosecution. The tribunal also considered the grounds of appeal on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 144B, 253, 246A, 69C, 270A, 271AAC, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.:
This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of
the income tax Act 1961,[ herein after referred to as the Act
for the sake of brevity] before this tribunal as & by way of a
second Appeal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order
bearingNumber:-ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077285189(1)
dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the
Act, which is herein after referred to as the “Impugned
order”. The Relevant Assessment year is 2018-19 and the
Page 1 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2017 to
31.03.2018.
Factual Matrix
2.1 That as & by way of an Assessment order made u/s 147 rws
144 B of the Act, the total income of the assessee was computed
and assessed at Rs. 30,19,970 /- . Income as per the original
return of income filed was at Rs. 19,52,800 /- . Income as per
the return of income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 was
at Rs. 19,52,800/-. The variation/ addition in respect of interest
earned was made at Rs. 3,990 /-. The variation /addition in
respect of purchase expenses [claimed u/s 69 c] was made at Rs.
10,63,180/-. That the aforesaid assessment order bears no.-
ITBA/ AST/ S / 147 / 2022-23/ 1050833212 (1) & that the same
is dated 16/03/2023 , which is hereinafter referred to as the
“impugned assessment order”.
2.2 That the Assessee being Aggrieved by the aforesaid
“Impugned Assessment Order” prefers the first appeal u/s
246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the
Page 2 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
1st “Impugned Order” has dismissed the appeal of the
Assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core ground & reasons for the dismissal of the 1st appeal was as
under:-
Page 3 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
Page 4 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
Page 5 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
Page 6 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
Page 7 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
2.3 The Assessee being Aggrieved by the “Impugned Order”
has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal
and has raised following grounds of appeal in the form No.
36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:-
“1. The learned Assessing officer erred in making addition in absence of corroborative evidences on record. Therefore, the appellant denies his liability to be assessed at total income of Rs. 30,19,970 /- against returned income of Rs. 19,52,800/-
That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the learned assessing officer has erred in law in not providing sufficient reasonable opportunity to contest inference drawn in the assessment order by not observing the principles of Natural Justice.
The Learned Assessing Officer erred in adding the Purchase From M/s Texmo International bill dated 28/03/2018 as bogus purchase. M/s Texmo International could not able to make supplies, hence amount of Rs 10,63,180/- is still showing Receivable in our Books till 31/03/2022. The Advance payment of Rs 10,63,180/- is not seems to be recoverable. The amount of purchase not debited to profit and loss account and even the said sum is added to income as bogus purchase.
The learned AO erred in adding Rs 3,990/- as interest income, whereas the assessee firm already disclosed higher Interest income in the books of account. The source information/ evidence also not provided while making the addition 5. The learned AO also not provided the opportunity of cross verification of the purchasing dealer, whereas the same is specifically requested for.
Page 8 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
The learned CIT(A) wrongly disposed of the appeal ex parte, ignoring the written submission filed on time, violating principles of natural justice and making the order liable to be set aside. The learned CIT (A) also not passed the rectification order on the application for rectification filed by the Assessee on 30/6/2025. The opportunity of being heard is not given to assessee. 7. The learned assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty u/s 270A on account of under reporting of the income to the extent of addition at Rs. 3990/- and It is consequential in nature. 8. The learned assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty u/s 271AAC on account of under reporting of the income to the extent of addition at Rs. 10,63,180/-and It is consequential in nature.
The learned assessing officer has erred in levying interest u/s 234A and interest u/s 234B the computation sheet not enclosed by the AO and the levy interest is consequential in nature.
The appellant craves, leave to add or amend or adduce or alter or delete or modify any or all grounds of appeal as mentioned here in above at or before the time of hearing.”
Record of Hearing
3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this tribunal on
07/01/2026 when no one appeased for and on behalf of the
assessee. Registry of this tribunal has not pointed out any delay
in filling the instant appeal. However the ld. DR for & on behalf of
the revenue has appeared before this tribunal. We find no
adjournment on record by the assessee or his AR. It was brought
to our notice by the ld. DR that the “Impugned assessment
Page 9 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
order” is exparte and only part compliances were made by the
assessee. In so far as the “impugned order” is concerned it was
submitted by the ld. DR that the same is exparte too, in view of
the above nature of orders of the lower authorities i.e. the ld. AO
and the Ld. CIT (A) and so also view of the fact that none has
appeared for and on behalf of the assessee today and that there
is not even application for adjournment on record it was
submitted that the “impungned order” be set aside and the
matter be remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO on denovo
basis hearing was closed.
Observations Findings & conclusions
4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and proprietary
of the “impugned order” basis records of the case & the rival
submission canvassed before us.
4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case and have
heard the submissions.
4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon
examining the contentions of the Ld. DR as none has appeared
Page 10 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
for and on behalf of the assessee today and there is no
application for any adjournment by the assessee or his the Ld.
AR. We are of the considered opinion that the “impugned
assessment order” is under section 147/144B of the Act and the
matter in real terms has not been adjudicated and adjudged
basis merits even the Ld. DR has submitted that there is only
part compliance by the assessee during the course of the
assessment proceedings before Ld. AO. We also observe that in first operative part of impugned order -1st appeal is dismissed
due to non participation of the assessee & in the later operative part of impugned order merit is discussed & 1st appeal is
dismissed. This Tribunal therefore observe that total income of
the assessee has not been computed & assessed basis merits of
the case. It is well settled law that the total income of the assesee
must be computed & assessed on real time basis exigible to tax
by the following due process of law under the Act. Be that as it
may this tribunal observes that at both the lower stags i.e. before
the Ld. AO & the Ld. CIT(A) total income is not assessed by the
following due process of law. We also observe that the assessee
too has remained non-compliant both in filing reply & in
Page 11 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
attending opportunities offered by the lower authorities. This
Tribunal expects the assessee to be compliant & should
cooperate with the department as & when notices, etc. are issued.
In brief this Tribunal desires meritorious disposal of both the
“Impugned Asessment Order” as well as the “Impugned
Order”. The assessee’s cooperation in this regard assumes
importance. The assessee cannot go in the slumber Mode. In the
result we are of the considered opinion & view that the
“Impugned Order” should be set aside & the matter should be
remanded back to the file of the Ld. AO for passing a fresh order
on the merits of the case. It is the expectation of this Tribunal
that the assessee would given his full & complete details about
income & other details as sought by the Ld. AO in the timely
manner. The assesee to attend hearings as & when fixed & to file
reply & details as sought by the Ld. AO.
4.4 In view of the above, we set aside the “Impugned Order”
& remand the case back to file of the Ld. AO on denovo basis,
who shall now pass a speaking & well reasoned order.
Page 12 of 13
Shivalaya Engineering Works ITA No. 675/Ind/2025 - A.Y.2018-19
5 Order
5.1 In result-Impugned order is set aside as and by way of
remand back to the file of the Ld. AO.
5.2. In result, appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.
pronounced in open court on 16 .01.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Indore Dated : 16/01/2026 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 13 of 13
