ASHOK SHARMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. DCIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

ITA 660/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Ashok Sharma against the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, which were confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi. The appeals pertain to the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20, where additions were made to Sharma's income on account of alleged commission income and unexplained credits from sales transactions. The primary legal issues revolved around the validity of reassessment proceedings and the legality of the additions made. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits, which necessitated a remand for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826477 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: R. B. DOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Cost of acquisition; Bogus purchase; Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Opportunity of cross examination; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

"1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी पाथŊ सारथी चौधरी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अवधेश क ुमार िमŵ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos: 660 & 661/RPR/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Ashok Sharma, B/3/12, Udaya Society, Sector-4, Tatibandh, Raipur-492099, C.G. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Aaykar Bhawan, Bhilai-490001, C.G. PAN: BKIPS3667N (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri R. B. Doshi, CA राजˢ की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 05.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: Since facts, grounds and issues involved in the above captioned appeals are common and identical; therefore, these appeals were heard together for adjudication by this common order for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. The captioned appeals for Assessment Years (‘AYs’) 2018-19 and 2019-20 filed by the assessee are directed against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’), New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) on 22.08.2025 (Both orders are even dated). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 2 3. The assessee has raised following grounds in the above-mentioned appeals: ITA No. 660/RPR/2025 “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.40,49,229/- made by AO, being 10% of certain sale transactions, treating it to be commission income of the appellant. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and not adjudicating ground no. 2 to 4 taken before him relating to validity of reassessment proceedings and reassessment order. The appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the reassessment order passed by AO is illegal inasmuch as there was no escapement of income within the meaning of sec. 147. Initiation of reassessment and consequent reassessment order is illegal and liable to be quashed. 4. The reassessment proceedings are illegal inasmuch as the case was reopened for verification of information which is not covered within the ambit of sec. 147. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal reassessment order. 5. The reassessment order passed by AO is illegal and unsustainable inasmuch as the additions made by AO are without jurisdiction since no addition was made by the AO on account of the reasons for which case was reopened. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal reassessment order. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any ground/s of appeal.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 3 ITA No. 661/RPR/2025 “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,06,68,214/- made by AO, on account of sales treating it to be unexplained credit, invoking sec. 68. The addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, baseless and not justified. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and not adjudicating ground no. 2 to 4 taken before him relating to validity of reassessment proceedings and reassessment order. The appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is illegal. 3. Assumption of jurisdiction by jurisdictional AO and consequent reassessment order passed is illegal and liable to be quashed inasmuch as notice u/s 148 is not issued in accordance with sec. 151A. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal reassessment order. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, initiation of reassessment proceedings and the consequent reassessment order passed by the AO is illegal, ab initio void. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal reassessment order. 5. The reassessment order passed by AO is illegal inasmuch as there was no escapement of income within the meaning of sec. 147. Initiation of reassessment and consequent reassessment order is illegal and liable to be quashed. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition based on illegal reassessment order. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, amend or alter any ground/s of appeal.” 3.1 In nutshell, the appellant assessee has challenged the impugned orders of the Ld. CIT(A), not only on the merit but also on the legal issue i.e., the validity of reopening of assessment, illegality of impugned orders being contrary to the principle of natural justice and non-adjudication of each grounds of appeal raised Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 4 by the assessee in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 4. The relevant facts giving rise to these appeals, as evident from records, are that the appellant assessee filed his original Income Tax Returns (‘ITR’) declaring income of Rs. 3,01,620/- and Rs.20,70,560/- for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. Later on, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’), based on the information that the appellant assessee had taken accommodation entries in the garb of purchases from M/s H. K. Enterprises, a proprietary concern of Shri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, reopened the assessments of relevant years. During the course of reassessment proceedings of both years, the Ld. AO observing that the appellant assessee indulged in providing accommodation entries in the garb of sales to other entities, show-caused the assessee to explain the genuineness of certain purchases and sales in the relevant years. In response, the appellant assessee claimed that no fictious purchases and sales was made by it in the relevant years. However, the Ld. AO was not satisfied with the explanations of the assessee. The Ld. AO thus opining in ITA No.660/RPR/2025 for AY 2018- 19 that the appellant assessee acted as intermediary in providing accommodation entries as an intermediatory with corresponding fictious purchases and sales, taxed 10% of the fictious sales/accommodation entries of Rs.4,04,92,288/-. In the ITA No.661/RPR/2025 for AY 2019-20, the Ld. AO taxed the entire fictious sales of Rs.1,06,68,214/- as income. In the cases in hands, the Ld. AO concluded that the appellant assessee was indulged in providing accommodation entries through corresponding fictious purchases and sales. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 5 4.1 The relevant finding of the Ld. AO in assessment order (page 7-10) relevant to the ITA No. 660/RPR/2025 is reproduced hereunder: “4.2.2 The assessee has made Sales transaction made with M/s Palak Enterprise having PAN No. APTPG5248L during the year under consideration; - 4.2.2.1 In this regard, the assessee was asked to furnish details vide letter dated 09.02.2023 as under;- (i) Nature of transaction with Palak Enterprises along with documentary evidences (ii) Copy of bank statement highlighting the transactions (iii) Purpose of Transaction highlighting the accounting entry made in the books of account wrt the transactions made with Palak Enterprises. The assesse was also informed that enquiry was conducted by the Investigation Wing, Bhavnagar in the case of Shri PinalDolatraySheth (PAN: BFFPS4680R). Shri PinalDolatraySheth attended the O/o ADIT(lnv.), Bhavnagar on 28.07.2021 and his statement on oath u/s 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was recorded. In his statement recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he stated that he knew Shri JayeshbhaiBalwantrai Shah for the last 25 years. The latter had taken the documents of Shri PinalDolatraySheth for GST registration of Shreenath Traders as well as for account opening in Axis Bank and Andhra Bank. In lieu of this, he used to get Rs. 10000/- per month from Shri Jayeshbhai Balwantrai Shah. The accounts of Shreenath Traders were handled by Shri Ketanbhai J. Gajjar. During the ongoing proceedings in the O/o Asst. Director of Investigation (lnv.), Bhavnagar, summons u/s 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.07.2021 was also issued to Shri Ketanbhai Gajjar (Account handler of Shreenath Traders, Bhavnagar) and his statement on oath was recorded. It has been informed by the Investigation Wing that vide Question No. 10, Shri Ketanbhai Gajjar was asked about the firms of which he handled the accounts of and business activities of firms. In response, he stated that in the year 2015, he handled the accounts of various firms. Shri Ketanbhai Gajjar further stated that all the entities were merely paper entities, and no real business activity was carried out from them. In 2017, after the introduction of GST, he handled the accounts of various firms/ companies and Palak Enterprise-APTPG5248L, was one of them. These firms were stated to be paper entities and no real businesses have been carried out by them and were used only for providing Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 6 accommodation entries. From the details of beneficiaries of transaction with Palak Enterprise, it is noted that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries. 4.2.2.2 On perusal of the submission filed by the assessee in response to notice issued on 09.02.2023, it is noted that the assessee has not provided any documentary evidence w.r.t to the Transportation of the material w.r.t the transactions made with Palak Enterprises having PAN No. APTPG5248L. In the absence of stock register and proof of delivery of goods, genuineness of the transaction is not established. In light of these facts and the findings as above, it is clear that these entries have been routed through Rama Steel Corporation and the assessee has facilitated these bogus transactions in lieu of Commission. It is noted from the submission that the assessee has provided bogus sales bills of Rs.2,07,61,792/-. Therefore, the assessee .was show caused as to why 10% of the bogus sales of Rs.2,07,61,792/-with Palak Enterprise should not be held as commission income earned for facilitating such transactions through Shree Ram Steel and added to its income for the year under consideration. 4.3 On perusal of the submissions filed by the assessee on 16.02.2023, it is noted that the assessee has not submitted stock register and proof of delivery of Goods failing which the genuineness of the transaction is not established. This clearly underline the facts that the transactions with Jay Durga lspat and Palak Enterprises are only book entries and have been routed through the Rama Steel Corporation and Shree Ram Steel respectively for facilitating such bogus transactions in lieu of Commission. Further, the assessee in its submission filed vide letter dated 25/02/2023, the assessee has contested that it is not responsible for lifting of goods and the same are directly lifted from manufacturer by Jay Durga lspat Co. And Palak Enterprises through vehicles hired by them and also lifting expenses were borne by themselves. It has further stated that it is searching with the evidence of movement of goods to destination of buyer through e-receipts and passing from toll plaza throughout the whole journey of vehicles and that it will submit the said evidences after obtaining the same from the toll. 4.3.1 Till the finalisation of this order, the assessee has not furnished these evidences. Further the fact that it is not engaged in the lifting of goods for supply from the manufacturer to its customer i.e. Jay Durga lspat Co. And Palak Enterprises, itself flags a doubt regarding the role of the assessee in this entire transaction with the aforesaid two entities. The assessee apparently only facilitates the sale of products from the manufacturer to Jay Durga lspat Co. and Palak Enterprises. It is actually not selling any goods which is further corroborated by the fact that no stock register and delivery Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 7 challan is maintained. Any prudent businessman who is genuinely carrying out any business for example selling of goods or for that matter trading of goods will definitely have a stock inward register which will bear the purchase cost of the assessee from his buyer and then a stock outward register which will have his sale value to his customer. A trader, if he has to sustain in the market will never reveal its source of acquisition of goods to his customers else there always lies a fear that it will definitely be sidelined in future by its source as well as by the customer. The fact that the assessee is not carrying out any of the aforesaid acts while purchasing and selling the goods, itself establishes the findings of the Investigation Wing that the assessee is actually not carrying out any business activity and has bogus accommodation entries to Jay Durga lspat Co. And Palak Enterprise and the only gain out of it for the assessee is commission. 4.3.2 The assessee in its submission has further contested that the AO has not provided a copy of the statements to the assessee, thus, denying it opportunity of cross examination. Here it is pertinent to mention that throughout the proceedings u/s. 148A and the assessment proceedings, no request for providing statement recorded on oath has been made by the assessee. The related information has been shared with the assessee. In the absence of any specific request, there is no question of providing the assessee with the copy of' statements. The assessment has been re- opened on the basis of information from the Investigation Wing wherein statements on oath of key persons were recorded. Amongst them were Shri Bhaveshkumar Bhogilal Patel and Shri Ketanbhai Gajjar whose statements were recorded wherein they mentioned the entities such as Jay Durga lspat Co. and Palak Enterprises respectively were not carrying out any actual business and were engaged in obtaining & providing accommodation entries for various beneficiaries. The assessee has transacted with both these entities to whom it has allegedly sold goods. But as stated above, the assessee has not maintained any stock register, transportation details. On being queried, it has merely stated that the goods are directly picked up from the manufacturer by its clients viz. Jay Durga lspat Co. and Palak Enterprises. In the backdrop of the information received that the aforesaid entities are engaged in providing & obtaining accommodation entries without conducting any actual business, this statement of the assessee that the purchaser directly picks the goods from the manufacturer without any evidence of transportation details available with the assessee clearly establishes that the transactions with these entities are bogus and only on paper without conducting or selling any actual goods. 4.3.3 Therefore, it is clear that these transactions are conducted by the assessee only to legitimise its unaccounted income for which it has got Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 8 commission. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that addition on account of commission to its income is not justifiable is not acceptable and hence rejected. 4.4 To summarise, In the absence of any cogent submission by the assessee and for the reasons as discussed above, the transactions of Rs.1,97,30,496/-& Rs.2,07,61,792/- with Jay Durga lspat and Palak Enterprise respectively is held as bogus and therefore 10% of such bogus sales value amounting to Rs.40,49,229/- is held as Commission earned by the assessee for facilitating such transaction and added to its income for the year under consideration. The working of Commission Income is as under:- Total Sale transactions made with Jay Durgalspat Co :Rs. 1,97,30,496/- Total Sale transactions made with Palak Enterprises : Rs. 2,07,61,792/- Total : Rs. 4,04,92,288/- i.e. 10% of Rs.4,04,92,288 comes to Rs.40,49,229/-” 4.2 The relevant finding of the Ld. AO in the assessment order (page 9-11) relevant to the ITA No. 661/RPR/2025 is reproduced hereunder: “After going through the reply filed by the assessee it has been seen that the assessee has not been able to provide any supporting evidences with regard to supply order/contract/work order regarding the transaction of sale claimed to be made with M/s Indian steel impex. Also assessee filed no evidences with regard to The evidences of the item sold are actually moved from the Ware house /stock Register giving particulars of the same. Copy of the relevant portion of Ware House logbook verifying entry and exit of such Lorries, Evidence of Goods actually delivered mentioning date and to whom delivered is not filed. A documentary evidence of the receipt of the goods by the person mentioning his name/Particulars/authentication has not been filed, Copies of the Dharam kanda Slips mentioning the weights of delivery vehicle before loading the goods, after loading the goods and also after delivery of goods to the consignee be filed for all these transactions of goods. Further, as stated above, the said party i.e.M/s India steel Impex (Prop. Bhavesh kumar Bhogilal Patel ) with whom ,the assessee has made transaction of amount of Rs. 1,06,68,214/- has already admitted in his statement recorded on oath on 19/02/2020 that he has taken bogus purchase bills from various parties through his three concerns namely 'India Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 9 Steel lmpex', 'Jai Durga lspat Co.' and 'Uma steel Traders, . The assessee name also figures among the parties from whom such bogus bills were raised by the said party covered under Search 7 seizure action as described above. In view of the above, the transaction of sale claimed to have been made by the assessee remained to be substantiated with any corroborating evidences. Thus, the assessee has not been able to prove the genuineness of this transaction of sale claimed to be made with M/s Indian steel lmpex, in F.Y 2018-19 for an amount of Rs. 1,06,68,214/-. Further, the assessee did not filed any response to the proposed addition on this issue as communicated to the assessee vide SCN issued on 22/02/2024, as stated above. Thus it is clear that the assessee has nothing to say in his defense and the case is concluded accordingly. It is therefore inferred that the said transaction of Rs.1,06,68,214/- is bogus and is proposed to treat this transaction as unexplained credits made by the assessee u/s 68 of the I. T. Act which states that Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income- tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year.” 4.3 Aggrieved with both assessment orders, the appellant assessee filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed these appeals as under: “In the light of above facts of the case, on perusal of appellant various multiple/overlapping contentions/GOA as advanced against the appeal of AY 2018- 19 and AY 2019-20, it is noticeable that, appellant is contending the orders of AO as bad in law as there is no escapement of income with such information within the meaning of section 147 and thereby contended such re-assessment proceedings as bad in law and thereby pleaded to delete the orders of AO as not maintainable. Further in these GOA, appellant is contending that AO erred in making addition of Rs.40.49 lacs as appellant commission income as applicable to AY 2018-19 and addition of Rs.1.06 crore as unexplained credits as applicable to AY 2019-20 and contended such additions as arbitrary and bad in law and thereby pleaded to delete the same as not maintainable. Precisely, in all these GOA of AY 2018-19 and AY Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 10 2019-20, appellant is contending that AO has erred in passing re-assessment orders of AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 without jurisdiction as there is no escapement of income/such information for consequent additions as at Rs.40.49 lacs as appellant commission income of AY 2018-19 and Rs.1.06 crore as unexplained credits of AY 2019-20 and accordingly, requested to delete the same. However, on perusal of facts on record as brought out by AO in the relevant assessment orders of AY 2018- 19 and AY 2019-20, it is clearly noticeable that appellant is indeed involved in making substantial claims as a beneficiary of transacting parties as observed by AO in the assessment order involving search and search related findings as took place in the case of such transacting parties namely, M/s HK Enterprises and related other concerns/oath statements of such parties etc., as involved in providing accommodation entries to appellant as a beneficiary. In the light of these facts apparently, appellant has to reconcile the entire gamut of transactions as took place in these AYs i.e. AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 so as to substantiate genuineness of these transactions with supporting proofs for goods movement, stock reconciliations with GSTR filings as reconcilable with consequent sales/purchases as attributable to these parties namely M/s Jaydurga lspat Co. and Palak Enterprise of AY 2018-19 and M/s India Steel lmpex of AY 2019-20 as observed by AO in the relevant assessment orders as attributable to these parties. Apparently, these parties are involved in providing accommodation entries to the appellant as per the search findings as reasoned by AO as attributable to these transacting parties of appellant confirming the beneficiary nature of appellant in these transactions and thereby AO has initiated applicable reassessment proceedings for these two AYs as deem fit as explained by AO in the assessment order. Even during the re-assessment proceedings as well, apparently, appellant did not reconcile the entire gamut of transactions as took place with these identified parties as sought by AO with its supporting proofs to establish such genuineness of these transactions if any as indeed took place with these parties contrary to the findings/confirmations of the oath statements from the parties involved in providing these accommodation entries to the appellant. In the light of these apparent facts, on perusal of appellant various GOA/contentions as advanced for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20, it is noticeable that appellant is contending such initiation of 148 proceedings as bad in law and could not substantiate the same further, with such explainable facts of case as applicable to appellant as per IT Act depicting the findings of search as relatable to appellant as a beneficiary of accommodation entries. In the absence of the same, appellant mere claims to hold such initiation of 148 proceedings as involving erroneous initiation without any information neither has a basis nor has any justification and thereby appellant relevant GOA as advanced on this analogy of AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 is to be treated as not maintainable and same are dismissed. Further, with reference to the addition made as at Rs.40.49 lacs as attributable commission income on these transactions of AY 2018-19 and addition made as at Rs.1.06 crore Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 11 as unexplained credit as attributable unexplained sale of AY 2019-20 as well, appellant is contending both the additions as not maintainable as reasoned by AO and merely sought for deletion of the same as per the grounds advanced against these additions in respect to AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20. However, appellant did not substantiate the explain- ability of these transactions as took place with these identified parties as indeed not involved in availing such accommodation entries by the appellant for its reconciliation/verification by AO vis-a-vis search/oath statement findings and in the absence of the same apparently, there exists no infirmity in the reasoning adduced by AO in making these additions in respect to these AYs as per the facts of case brought on record as per law. Accordingly, appellant all relevant GOA as advanced against assessment order of AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 are to be treated as not maintainable and thereby both the appeals of AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20 are treated as dismissed as per facts available on record on merits, notwithstanding its dismissal for want of prosecution.” 5. At the outset, Shri R. B. Doshi, the Ld. Authorized Representative (“AR”) of the appellant assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal, ex-parte, without adjudicating the appeal on merit. Before us, the Ld. AR of assessee prayed for remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee failed to ensure proper and complete compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit after setting aside the impugned orders as these cases had been decided against the appellant assessee for want of prosecution. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR defended orders of the Authorities below. She, drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment orders and impugned orders, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard were provided to the appellant assessee by the Authorities below. However, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured non-compliance in both cases to avoid proper investigations. Hence, she prayed for dismissing these appeals and upholding of the impugned orders. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 12 7. We take note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided each grounds of appeals after discussing the issues in detail and his/her reasons for agreeing with the assessment orders though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his/her consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution/non- compliance and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merit. Further, we have also taken note of the fact that the appellant assessee has not ensured any effective compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) in any of these cases. 8. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on records. We have also taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided these cases ex-parte and not on the merit. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the appellant assessee deserves reasonable opportunity of being heard to make shortcomings or non-compliances as the appellant assessee has not ensured any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) in these cases. Therefore, considering all the facts and without offering any comment on merit of the case, we, in the interest of justice, deem it fit to set aside both impugned orders and to remit both cases back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 660 & 661/RPR/2025 Ashok Sharma vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhilai 13 afresh on merit. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that the appellant assessee should ensure compliances during the remitted appellate proceedings in both cases before the Ld. CIT(A). Further, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to decide these cases on merit afresh/denovo, in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. 9. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in open Court on 08.01.2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 08/01/2026 Vaibhav Shrivastav, Stenographer आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant- Ashok Sharma, Raipur 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent- DCIT-1(1), Bhilai, C.G. 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // सȑािपत Ůित True copy // Printed from counselvise.com "