BRAJESH SINGH BHADORIA, JAGDALPUR,BASTAR V. DY/ASST. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, NAYA RAIPUR

ITSSA 9/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the assessee, Brajesh Singh Bhadoria, against the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Raipur, for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19. The primary contention revolved around the procedural discrepancies in the approval of the draft assessment orders under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, compared to the final assessment orders under section 153A. The assessee argued that the final orders included a table of quantum addition that was not present in the draft orders, for which no approval was obtained from the competent authority. The CIT-DR countered that the quantum addition was implicitly included in the draft orders and was the same in the final orders, thus not requiring separate approval. The Tribunal noted the lack of substantive adjudication by the CIT(Appeals) due to non-compliance by the assessee and decided to remand the matter for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the need to uphold the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36572 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: Panchamahal Steel Ltd. Vs. U.A. Joshi & Anr, ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Vs. M/s. N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Union, Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE GETTING REDRESSAL FROM TRIBUNAL EVEN; PRAKHAR VIPLAVA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHILESH BEGANI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Assessment record; Competent authority; Validity of assessment

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./IT(SS)A Nos.1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2018-19 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Bhadoria Bhawan, Akashwani Road, Nayapara, Jagdalpur (C.G.)-494 001 PAN: ADFPB7744J ........अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Naya Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Prakhar Viplava Gupta, CIT-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 2 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: All the captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3 dated 05.12.2024 & 12.12.2024 for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the threshold of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in these group of matters, the facts and circumstances and the issues involved are absolutely identical which had been conceded by the Ld. CIT-DR. After hearing the submissions of both the parties, these matters are heard together and disposed of vide this consolidated order. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he had filed both grounds on merit as well as legal ground. As regards the legal ground is concerned, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the approval for draft assessment order u/s. 153D of the Act from the Addl. CIT, Range-Circle, Raipur was taken and there was difference in the draft assessment order and the final assessment order passed u/s.153A of the Act and that when such final assessment order was passed there was variation in the contents of the said order as compared to the draft assessment order for which no approval was taken from competent authority. 3 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 4. In this regard, the Hon’ble Bench directed the Ld. CIT-DR to place the assessment records, however, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the assessment records were sent to the Assessing Officer for his comments. That on this present date of hearing, the comments of the Assessing Officer is there and relevant part is extracted for the sake of completeness: “3. In this case, on through examination of records, it is found. that draft assessment order u/s.153A of the I.T Act, 1961 for A.Y 2012-13 to 2019-20 was sent for approval to the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central, Raipur on 27.09.2021 u/s.153D of I.T Act 1961, the same was approved by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central, Raipur vide esteemed letter F. No.Addl.CIT(C)/RPR/Tech./153D/2021-22 dated 28.09.2021. 4. On perusal of draft assessment order's vide its para no 7.3, it is seen that table of year-wise addition is not mentioned. On careful examination of draft assessment order, it appears that the Range Head has directed the then AO to insert a table of addition at the appropriate place. It also appears that the insertion of table is suggested by the Range Head after discussion with the then AO. 5. In final assessment order dated 29.09.2021, the table of addition has been inserted and income assessed for A.Y 2012-13 to 2018-19. Further, it is submitted that the amount of addition for AY 2012-13 to 2018-19 appears to be correct and there appears no mismatch in draft assessment order as well as final assessment order and the contents of both of the orders are found to be same.” 5. The Ld. Counsel submitted that on a bare perusal of the comments of the Assessing Officer, the discrepancy is that the calculation table of the quantum of addition was not there in the draft assessment order for which approval was taken from the competent authority. However, when the final assessment order was framed u/s.153A of the Act in that order there was a table of quantum of addition, for which there was no approval. The Ld. 4 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Panchamahal Steel Ltd. Vs. U.A. Joshi & Anr (1997) 225 ITR 458 and also the order of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur Vs. M/s. N.R. Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., IT(SSA) No.06/RPR/2021 & Ors. dated 30.08.2024. 6. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that though the calculation of quantum addition was not there in the draft assessment order, nonetheless in the draft assessment order, the entire quantum addition was mentioned and that is the same as appearing in the final assessment order and the approval was already there from the competent authority, therefore, in effect, since there was no difference in the draft assessment order and the final assessment order there was no need for a separate approval. It was further submitted by the Ld. CIT-DR that on perusal of the order of the respective Ld. CIT(Appeals)’s orders, it is evident from Para 3 for all the years in appeal, the CIT(Appeals) had disposed of the appeal vide an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee. The Ld. CIT-DR therefore submitted that there has been no adjudication substantively on the rights and liabilities of the parties herein by the first appellate authority and as a statutory authority there should have been adjudication on merits by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which was not possible due to non-compliance by the assessee. Therefore, these matters may be 5 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for passing an order in terms with Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act. 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties herein and analyzed the facts and circumstances involved in all the captioned appeals. After careful perusal of the documents on record, we find that the assessee had assailed the legal ground as aforestated, however, the fact of the matter is that on perusal of the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for all the years before us, it is also evident from Para 3 that there has been no compliance by the assessee before the said authority and as such, an ex-parte order was passed for the concerned years in appeal. Admittedly, as per record, sufficient opportunities had been provided to the assesse, however, there was no compliance by the assessee. In effect, rights and liabilities of the parties herein are yet to be adjudicated substantially at the level of the first appellate authority. Though in the impugned orders, discussion has been done as per material available on record by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) but they are only Form 35, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and the assessment order. However, due to non- compliance by the assessee, there are no submissions, evidence and documents submitted for adjudication by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). That as per Para 3 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order, there has been no compliance on the part of the assessee for submitting detailed explanations regarding the grounds of appeal for the years under 6 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 consideration which clearly shows that the grounds of appeal raised before the first appellate authority has not been substantiated on merits through corroborative evidence /submissions. 8. That in such scenario we are of the considered view that the Income tax Act is within the ambit of welfare legislation which are completely different from that of the penal legislation, therefore, benefit of doubt whenever arises, it has to be interpreted in favour of the assessee tax payer within the parameters of law and facts. There may be circumstances beyond control of the assessee because of which, the assessee may not have been able to represent his case on the given dates of hearing before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Though it is correct that there was no compliance from the side of the assessee, however, nothing is there on record which suggests any deliberate non-compliance or malafide conduct of the assessee. That further, if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee to represent his case before the first appellate authority, the position of the revenue will also not be jeopardized. 9. Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vijay Shrinivasrao Kulkarni Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (2025) 171 taxmann.com 696 (Bom.), dated 04.02.2025 observed that in the case the Assessing Officer had passed an ex-parte order and when the matter went on appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it had also dismissed 7 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 the matter ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee’s authorized representative, when the matter came up before the ITAT, it had failed to address the infirmity regarding the fact that the assessee was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard and the matter was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, and instead ITAT decided the case on merits, in such circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that passing of an order on merits by the ITAT even when the impugned order was passed ex- parte amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, the said matter was remanded to ITAT for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The legal principle as enshrined in the present judgment is crystal clear that the principles of natural justice i.e. the right to be heard is to be provided and accordingly, the matter had to be substantially adjudicated by the appellate authority. Therefore, if the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is an ex- parte order, the only recourse in conformity with the aforesaid judicial pronouncement is to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for fresh adjudication in terms with the principles of natural justice providing one final opportunity to the assessee. 10. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay had referred to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Union AIR 1999 SC 564, 8 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 wherein the Supreme Court inter-alia held that Article 14 guarantees a right of hearing to a person who is adversely affected by an administrative order. The principle of audi-alteram partem is a part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In light of such decision, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard which, partakes the characteristic of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the aforesaid case had referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar 1969 1 SCC 591, wherein the Supreme Court in interpreting the section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 has held that the appellate tribunal was bound to give a proper decision on question of fact as well as law, which can only be done if the appeal is disposed off on merits and not dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant. Reverting to the facts of the present case the grounds of appeal were simply filed before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) they were not substantiated or corroborated through submissions and filing of documentary evidences since the assessee had not complied before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) on the dates of hearing. Therefore, as per framework of the Act there must be adjudication on merits by the first appellate authority and one final opportunity be provided to the assessee to represent his matter on merits in the interest of natural justice. 9 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 12. There may even be a situation where the Ld. Counsel for the assessee may assail a legal ground before the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) with a contention that irrespective of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) being ex- parte, the Tribunal may decide the legal issue that has been raised by the Ld. Counsel. In our view, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) provides that any legal issue which goes to the root of the matter and is established through legal principles, the assessee can take up and raise such legal issue at any appellate forum irrespective of whether the assessee had raised such legal issue at the sub-ordinate level or not, however, it always depends on facts and circumstances of each case whether the Tribunal would decide the legal ground or in a case where the question is of natural justice and ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) the Tribunal would remand it back to Ld.CIT(Appeals) providing final opportunity to a bonafide assessee. The Tribunal as the highest fact finding authority must be certain enough that the impugned order before it has been passed on merits and is a speaking order where the assessee has also complied during the process of litigation. In case, where the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) itself is ex-parte and some legal ground is raised and if the Tribunal decides such legal ground where in fact principles of 10 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 natural justice is left unanswered due to the fact that the impugned order before the Tribunal is ex-parte and there was no compliance by the assessee in such scenario the Tribunal would also be usurping the power of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which is also a statutory authority as per the Act. This is due to the reason that as per framework of the Act, Ld.CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority where an appeal by assessee it would be substantially decided through a speaking order by the Ld.CIT(Appeals). When this part is over and either party is aggrieved second appeal lies before the ITAT. Now if for every ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), of course due to non-compliance by the assessee, if the Tribunal adjudicates a legal ground, for instance validity of assessment or reassessment order and answers it in favour of the assessee then it would create an easy route for assessee getting redressal from Tribunal even without bothering to comply with hearing notices before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). This would dismantle the structure of the Act which is definitely not the intention of the legislature. Here in this situation, where the benefit of doubt is given to the assessee since he had not complied with the hearing notices before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which resulted in passing of an ex-parte order by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), in such scenario, as per the scheme of the Act and following the principles of natural justice, the only course of action is to remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. 11 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits providing one final opportunity to the assessee. 13. In view thereof, we set aside the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for all the years and remand the same to their file for denovo adjudication on merits. At the same time, we direct the assessee that this being the final opportunity, there must be compliance on merits before the first appellate authority. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass an order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months from receipt of this order. 14. As per the above terms, all the grounds of appeals stands allowed for statistical purposes. 15. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 20th March, 2025. ##SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. 12 Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy/Asst. CIT, CC-2, Naya Raipur IT(SS)A Nos. 1 to 6, 8 & 9/RPR/2025 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "