SUSHIL RICE AND GENERAL MILLS,PINGLI ROAD KARNAL vs. ITO WARD-1-KARNAL, KARNAL

Per Mahavir Singh, Vice President:

This Appeal by Assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in Appeal No. NFAC/2012-13/10139481 dated 22.02.2024. The assessment was framed by AO of NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2013-14 u/s 147 r/w
Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as, “Act”), vide his order dated 26.03.2022. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal is time-barred by fourteen days and the Assessee has filed Condonation Petition stating the reason that the Assessee could not hand-over the papers to the Counsel for preparing of appeal and also could not deposit the Tribunal fee within time. According to him, this Sushil Rice And General Mills

2 | P a g e being a small delay of meager fourteen days, the delay may kindly be condoned.
On the other hand, the Ld. Senior DR could not controvert the above fact situation. Keeping in mind the factual position and going by the small delay of fourteen days and considering the substantial cause of justice, we condone the delay and admit the appeal.
3. None is present from Assessee’s side, but Assessee filed Adjournment
Petition stating the reason that the Counsel is suffering from viral fever and advised rest for few days. The Assessee also enclosed doctor’s certificate i.e.
Dr. Sandeep Chaudhri who is a specialist of heart disease and Chest. We noticed that the Assessee, time and again, has requested for adjournment and going by the records we, proceed to reject this Adjournment Petition and hearing this appeal ex-parte qua Assessee.
4. The Bench asked Ld. Senior DR that what is the issue in this appeal. On this, Ld. Sr. DR pointed out from the grounds of appeal that the Assessee has raised the issue of limitation u/s 147 r/w section 148 of the Act. He drew our attention to Ground No. 2, wherein it is urged that the time allowed for adjudication of the assessee’s assessment was very short and the CIT (A) has not appeal with the issue. It was contended that even copy of reasons recorded were not supplied and, hence, there is the violation of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court’s judgement in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) LTD v/s ITO [2002]
125 Taxman 963, but Ld. Sr. DR stated that the CIT (A) has adjudicated the issue of re-opening as well as issue on merits of addition being on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 1,43,59,876/- . Ld. Sr. DR stated that the assessee is obtaining accommodation entries of purchasing one entry provider i.e. Shri
Hitesh Jain and, this information was in the possession of the AO which was retrieved on the basis of search/survey carried on by the Investigation Wing in the premises of Shri Hitesh Jain. We noted that the Assessee before CIT(A), filed complete details of sales and purchases and also produced complete books
Sushil Rice And General Mills

3 | P a g e of accounts but the CIT(A) adjudicated the issue simpliciter on the basis that there is one entry provider Mr. Hitesh Jain from whom the Assessee has obtained this entry of bogus purchases of Rs. 1,43,59,876/- . We noted that the Assessee, despite filing of the details before CIT(A), CIT(A) has not gone into details of genuineness of invoices of sale and purchase, books of accounts and without that simpliciter on the report of Investigation Wing, confirmed the addition.
5. As the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue in real spirit and has not gone into all the evidences, we feel that this is a fit case of remanding the issue back to CIT(A). Accordingly, the CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue of re- opening in terms of the above. The order of CIT(A) is set-aside and matter is remanding back for fresh adjudication to the Ld. CIT(A), after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
6. In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13.11.2025. (Krinwant Sahay )
Vice President

Dated: 18.11.2025
Pooja Mittal