ADITYA AGRAWAL,INDORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, A.B. ROAD, INDORE

ITA 463/IND/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Aditya Agrawal, the proprietor of Hanuman Sales Corporation, who appealed against the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The reassessment was based on suspicious and abnormal transactions in the assessee's bank account, leading to an addition of Rs. 23,70,57,420 to the assessed income. The initial appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the assessee's request for another opportunity to present his case, imposed a cost and directed a re-hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 23892 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member Aditya Agrawal 202, Harmoni Plaza, 01, Agrawal Nagar New & Old Madhya Pradesh 4520001 PAN No. AOXPA3613E (Appellant) Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Indore (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Kunal Agrawal and Shri Harshit Chokse, A.Rs. Revenue Represented: Ms. Ila Parmar, CIT/DR Date of hearing : 05-12-2024 Date of pronouncement : 27-12-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. ITA No. 463/Ind/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 I.TA No. 463/IND/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No Aditya Agrawal vs. ITO 2 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of Hanuman Sales Corporation engaged in the trading of Pulses, Oil Seeds and Water. For the Asst. Year 2012-13 assessee filed his Return of Income on 30-09-2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,90,870/-. Information received from DDIT(Inv.)-1, Indore about the abnormal and suspicious debit and credit entries in the bank account maintained by the assessee with HDFC Bank to the sum of Rs.23,23,12,674/-. Therefore a notice u/s. 148 dated 31.03.2019 was issued to the assessee. The assessee replied to the Assessing Officer with bank details and business transaction with various parties. However the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 23,70,57,420/- as the assessed income and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggreived against the same, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was migrated to NFAC in terms of CBDT Notification. The assessee was given four opportunities of hearing between 08- 02-2021 to 03-08-2023 which were not complied with and no documents produced before Ld. CIT(A), thereby the appeal field by the assessee was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved against the same, assessee is in appeal before us raising various grounds. Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee could not attend the hearings before Ld. CIT(A) because of miscommunication and is now prepared to file all relevant documents and evidences before Ld. CIT(A), therefore requested for one opportunity of hearing to make out its case. I.TA No. 463/IND/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No Aditya Agrawal vs. ITO 3 5. Per contra Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee is not cooperative even before the Assessing Officer as well as before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore no question of setting aside the matter, if at all there should be some cost be levied for setting aside the above appeal. 6. Having heard the rival contentions, to meet the ends of justice, we deem it fit to impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable to Prime Minister National Relief Fund by the assessee within two weeks of receipt of this order. On compliance to the above direction and production of receipt of the cost of Rs. 5,000/-, Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is directed to give one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass order on merits and in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T. Rules 1963 on 27 -12-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore: Dated 13/12/2024 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) I.TA No. 463/IND/2023 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No Aditya Agrawal vs. ITO 4 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore Strengthened preparation & delivery of orders in the ITAT 1) Date of dictation 06/12/2024 2) Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member & Other Member /12/2024 3) Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. /12/2024 4) Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 13/12/2024 5) Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S. /12/2024 6) Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk /12/2024 7) Date on which the file goes the Head Clerk 8) Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 9) Date of Dispatch of the order "