AI Insights
The case involves appeals by Chetan Sahu against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were based on reassessments made under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessments were prompted by findings from a search and seizure operation at Prakash Industries Limited, which implicated Sahu in routing large sums of unexplained cash through various bank accounts. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the handling of notices and the opportunity for the assessee to be heard, leading to the decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remand the case for a fresh assessment.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 106816 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-12-2024
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Judgement Text
"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी रिवश सूद, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 500 & 501/RPR/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Chetan Sahu, Zora Para, New Yadav Kirana Store, Raipur (C.G.)-492001 V s Income Tax Officer-Ward-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)-492001 PAN: BRWPS3657R (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Adv. राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”], u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14 & 2014-15 both dated 24.09.2024, which in turn arises from the order of Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department us 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 25.05.2023 and 23.05.2023, respectively. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: 2 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 500/RPR/2024 (AY 2013-14) Ground No. I 1. That the re-opening notice dated 27.07.2022 issued u/s. 148 under the amended provisions of law is barred by limitation, unsustainable, invalid, void ab initio and untenable in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) [03-10-2024] as the same was issued beyond the 'surviving period' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") read with TOLA and hence, the reassessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is bad in law, barred by limitation, unsustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed. GROUND NO. II 2. That the re-opening notice issued u/s.148 has been issued without obtaining necessary approval u/s.151 of the Act from the specified authority as envisaged in the provisions of the section 151(ii) of the Act and hence the same is highly illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and unsustainable hence, it is earnestly requested that the re-opening notice and corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B may please be quashed and cancelled in limine. GROUND NO. III 3. a. That the Order passed u/s.148A(d) and the corresponding reopening notice issued u/s.148 on 27th July, 2022 has been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1), Raipur ('the Ld. JAO') and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (\"the Ld. FAO) thereby violating the mandatory provisions enshrined u/s.151A of the Act r. w. the Notification/ Scheme issued by the Hon'ble CBDT w.e.f. 29/03/2022, hence, the Order passed u/s.148A(d), reopening notice u/s.148 and consequential re- assessment proceedings is highly illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, without jurisdiction and unsustainable hence, it is earnestly requested that the assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B may please be quashed and cancelled in limine b. That the re-opening notice does not bear Document Identification Number and there was nothing on record to show that there were exceptional circumstances as mentioned in Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14-8-2019 issued by Hon'ble CBDT hence, the Order passed u/s.148A(d), reopening notice u/s.148 and consequential re- assessment proceedings is highly bad in law, illegal void ab initio, and unsustainable hence, it is earnestly requested that the assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B may please be quashed and cancelled. 3 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur GROUND NO. IV 4. That the Appellate Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi (\"the Ld. CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Act is highly unjustified, bad in law, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, against the principles of natural justice and not in accordance with the provisions of law since, the notices of hearing were not served on the e-mail id provided in Appeal Memo filed in Form No.35. It is prayed that the Appellate Order passed under section 250 of the Act may please be cancelled/set- aside on this ground alone. GROUND NO. V 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. ClT(A) has grossly erred in confirming an addition of Rs.1,13,02,086/- being 100 percent of the total deposits in bank account of the appellant, made by the Ld.AO invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act treating the same as unexplained money which is highly unjustified, unwarranted, unsustainable, not proper on facts, ignoring the submissions of the appellant thereby based on presumptions & surmises and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the deposits does not belong to the appellant and that he is only earning commission income on such amount which is duly disclosed in the return of income filed, hence, it is earnestly prayed that the unjustified addition of Rs.1,13,02,086/- may kindly be deleted. GROUND NO. VI 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA No. 501/RPR/2024 (AY 2014-15) Ground No. I 1. That the re-opening notice dated 27.07.2022 issued u/s. 148 under the amended provisions of law is barred by limitation, unsustainable, invalid, void ab initio and untenable in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) [03-10-2024] as the same was issued beyond the 'surviving period' under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") read with TOLA and hence, the reassessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is bad in law, barred by limitation, unsustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed. GROUND NO. II 2. That the re-opening notice issued u/s.148 has been issued without obtaining necessary approval u/s.151 of the Act from the specified authority as envisaged in the provisions of the section 151(ii) of the Act and hence the same is highly illegal, bad in law, void ab initio and unsustainable hence, it is earnestly requested that the re-opening notice and corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B may please be quashed and cancelled in limine. GROUND NO. III 3. a. That the Order passed u/s.148A(d) and the corresponding reopening notice issued u/s.148 on 27th July, 2022 has been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur ('the Ld. JAO') and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (\"the Ld. FAO) thereby violating the mandatory provisions enshrined u/s.151A of the Act r. w. the Notification/ Scheme issued by the Hon'ble CBDT w.e.f. 29/03/2022, hence, the Order passed u/s.148A(d), reopening notice u/s.148 and consequential re-assessment proceedings is highly illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, without jurisdiction and unsustainable hence, it is earnestly requested that the assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B may please be quashed and cancelled in limine b. That the re-opening notice does not bear Document Identification Number and there was nothing on record to show that there were exceptional circumstances as mentioned in Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14-8-2019 issued by Hon'ble CBDT hence, the Order passed u/s.148A(d), reopening notice u/s.148 and consequential re-assessment proceedings is highly bad in law, illegal void ab initio, and unsustainable hence, it is earnestly requested that the assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B may please be quashed and cancelled. 5 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur GROUND NO. IV 4. That the Appellate Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi (\"the Ld. CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Act is highly unjustified, bad in law, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, against the principles of natural justice and not in accordance with the provisions of law. It is prayed that the Appellate Order passed under section 250 of the Act may please be cancelled/set-aside on this ground alone. GROUND NO. V 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. ClT(A) has grossly erred in confirming an addition of Rs.2,89,18,520/- being 100 percent of the total deposits in bank account of the appellant, made by the Ld.AO invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act treating the same as unexplained money which is highly unjustified, unwarranted, unsustainable, not proper on facts, ignoring the submissions of the appellant thereby based on presumptions & surmises and not in accordance with the provisions of law. Further, CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the deposits does not belong to the appellant and that he is only earning commission income on such amount which is duly disclosed in the return of income filed, hence, it is earnestly prayed that the unjustified addition of Rs.2,89,18,520/- may kindly be deleted. GROUND NO. VI 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Since the aforesaid two appeals pertains to the same assessee having identical, interconnected and common controversies involved therein, therefore, these two appeals are heard together and taken up for adjudication under this common order. Accordingly, ITA 500/RPR/2024 is picked up as the lead case, wherein our decision and observations shall apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeal in ITA No. 501/RPR/2024. 6 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Chetan Sahu, is an individual have filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14, declaring total income at Rs.1,93,220/-. Subsequently, as per information received from Investigation Wing, Raipur, that during the search and seizure action carried out in the premises of Prakash Industries Limited on 29.03.2014, Ld. AO found that huge amounts of cash were routed through various banks account of different bogus concerns and the ultimate beneficiary was Prakash Industries Limited. One of all such bogus concern was identified as Maa Ambe Trading Corporation, whose Proprietor found to be Shri Chetan Sahu, i.e., the assessee in present case, where an amount of Rs.1,13,02,086/- was observed to be credited in the bank account of the said concern, bearing Account No. 4475(2220001840400268) with Jila Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Ramsagarpara. 5. During the assessment proceedings, various opportunities were granted to the assessee, wherein the assessee had furnished adjournment request/ part submission like copy of the return etc. In absence of proper compliance by the assessee u/s 148A(b) notice u/s 148 were issued on 27.07.2022 expecting assessee to file return of income in response to notice u/s 148, however, assessee did not comply. A notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 25.11.2021 and assessee furnished a reply along with copy of bank statements of two bank accounts maintained with Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank 7 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur Maryadit, Ramsagarpara, having A/c No. 32676459253 and 2220001845500878 ( Old Account No. 3498). 6. Subsequently, following the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal dtd. 04.05.2022 (2022 SCC online SC 543), Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued an Instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022, carving out therein, the detailed procedure to be followed in compliance to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court, Ld. AO issued a notice u/s 148 on 27.07.2022, requesting the assessee to file return u/s 148 within 30 days of receipt of the notice. The assessee did not respond to the said notice and also have not complied to the notice issued u/s 142(1). However, assessee requested for adjournment in the matter. Thereafter, assessee filed a return of income for AY 2013-14 on 18.03.2023, after making an addition of Rs.26,510/- under the head “Commission”, in the total income declared earlier in the original return u/s 139 filed on 23.12.2013 for Rs.1,93,220/-. Further, assessee furnished copy of bank statements, after deliberations, Ld. AO observed that there are certain variations in the information received from Investigation Wing and copy of statement furnished by the assessee, in response, there was no compliance by the assessee, therefore, the Ld. AO, concluded that, the assessee has failed to substantiate the source of the amount which had been credited in the bank account of his 8 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur so-called proprietorship business entity, therefore, an amount of Rs.1,13,02,086/- was proposed to be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, and to be added to the income of the assessee. Consequently, the assessee was asked to furnish details of utilization of cash withdrawal from the subject bank account. In absence of non-compliance by the assessee to the show cause notice issued dated 17.05.2023, he proposed addition u/s 69A was made to the written income of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the assessee remain noncompliant during the appellate proceedings towards all the notices issued to the assessee vide communications dated 29.03.2024, 05.07.2024, 15.07.2024, 07.08.2024 and 16.09.2024. It is observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the appellant had not filed any response towards the notices, therefore, the brief statement of fact submitted by the assessee are taken into consideration along with the material on assessment record including the assessment order and have approved the findings of Ld. AO in absence of any submission, clarification or explanations in rebuttal by the assessee. Resultantly, Ld. CIT(A) have decided the issue against the assessee by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. The observations of the Ld. CIT(A), while deciding the issue are culled out as under: 9 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 5. Determination and Decision 5.1 During the appellate proceedings, notices were issued to the appellant from time to time. However, he had not complied to the notices nor filed any submissions. Hence, all the grounds of appeal are adjudicated together. 5.2 It is pertinent that in order to decide this appeal in a timely manner a number of notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant, viz. Communications dated 29/03/2024, 05/07/12024, 15/07/2024, 07/08/2024 and 16/09/2024. However, there evidently has been no response from the appellant till date. There is no gain saying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on its part to purposefully and co-operatively pursue the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. It clearly appears that the appellant's compliance or rather lack of it, the appellant has not even bothered to pursue this appeal in any productive manner. Hence, in view of the aforesaid total non-compliance/non prosecution of the instant appeal on the part of the appellant, the instant appeal is adjudicated and disposed off, as under, ex-parte, primarily on the basis documentation available on record. 5.3 Firstly, it is stated at the outset, that in the situation as obtained in the instant case, as evidently seen from the above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed in terms of the ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court which held in CIT v. B. N. Bhattarcharjee and Another (10 CTR 354) that an appeal means an effective appeal and that to \"prefer an appeal\" would mean effectively prosecuting an appeal\". Purposefully and constructively interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it and if a party retreats before the contest begins, it is as good as not having entered the fray. 10 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 5.4 It is pertinent to add here that laws assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known maxim \"Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt\". It means equity comes to the aid of the vigilant and not the slumbering. In all actions, suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligent and careful plaintiff is favoured and prejudicial of him who is careless. Viewed thus, it is presumed that the appellant has no further cogent reasoning or/and evidence to substantiate the grounds taken in this impugned appeal. It is trite that the onus is on person making the claim, and the primary responsibility/onus/burden for proving the claim made before the tax authorities (Assessing Officers/Appellate Authorities) lies with the assessee/appellant. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to even discharge the primary onus/burden statutorily & judicially cast upon him to substantiate the claims made in the grounds of appeal inspite of adequate time and opportunities given as brought out in the foregoing paras. 5.5 It is, thus, evident that the appellant has no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken and it has not even once argued with any supporting, relevant and cogent arguments/averments, constraining me to, therefore, go through the extremely brief non-speaking submission appearing in the grounds of appeal and statement of facts filed along with the impugned appeal to decide on the merits while adjudicating the same. But the narrative submission/contention made vide the statement of facts/grounds of appeal is by and large on the very same made at the time of instant assessment which the AO after considering, has duly rejected or found without much merit leading him/her to add the same i.e., the disallowance/additions made in the said assessment order and enumerated in the impugned grounds against which I am constrained to concur with the AO's findings of fact and decisions 11 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur thereof, more particularly in the absence of any meaningful and worthwhile submissions/documentations even during the instant appellate proceedings in this case to counter effectively the position adopted by the AO on the concerned issues and reduced in writing in the assessment order. 5.6 The appellant filed his return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 23.12.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1,93,220/-. Information was received from Inv. Wing that during search & seizure carried out in the premises of Prakash Inds. Ltd. on 29.03.2014 where it was found that huge cash were routed through various bank accounts of different bogus concerns. The appellant was the proprietor of one such bogus concern and Rs. 1,13,02,086/- was found credited in the bank account of the said concern during F.Y. 2012-13. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. The A.O. passed order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 25.05.2023 making addition of Rs. 1,13,02,086/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 5.7 It is pertinent to note that even during the instant appellate proceedings, the appellant had chosen to remain silent and failed to substantiate or cooperate by filing the details called for, which shows the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. However, it was noted that despite several opportunities were given to the appellant, he has not responded for the reasons best known to him. Needless to mention that in order to prove his point, the appellant has to substantiate and back his point by providing relevant details, which he has failed to do so. 5.8 Relevant contents of the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 25.05.2023 is extracted below: 12 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 5.9 In view of the above, in the pertaining and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the action of the AO for adding Rs. 1,13,02,086/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. In this view of the matter, the decision of the AO is upheld. Consequently, the Grounds of the appellant is dismissed. 5.10 Before parting, it is trite that an appellate authority is essentially called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him as held in Nirmal Singh and Others of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court [Cr No. 3791 of 2013 (O&M) dated 01.05.2014] and in the absence of any reasonable, cogent and valid arguments/contentions advanced by the appellant in the instant appeal to counter the AO's decision as contained in the assessment order, as mentioned earlier, the additions/disallowances made by the AO is sustained in terms of the observations herein-above. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 8. The assessee thereafter, on dismissal of his appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), had further opted to carry the matter by way of an appeal before us, which is under consideration in the present cases. 9. At the outset, Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate, the Authorized Representative of the assessee (in short “Ld. AR”), referring to the grounds of appeal, have raised Multifold legal contentions along with contentions on merits, in order to alleged that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is suffered with 13 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur infirmities, therefore, the same along with the order of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B in the present case are liable to be set aside and quashed. 10. In the contention raised on behalf of the assessee by Ld. AR, it is noticed that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was an exparte order on account of non-prosecution/ no representation on behalf of the assessee. On this issue ground no. IV has been taken up by the assessee with the contention that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is highly unjustified, bad in law, without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, against the principal of natural justice and not in accordance with the provisions of law, since, the notices of hearing were not served on the email ID provided by the assessee in appeal memo filed in Form No. 35 before the First Appellate Authority. To substantiate the factual aspect of the controversy raised by the Ld. AO, our attention was drawn to the copy of form no. 35 placed before us in the appeal folder, wherein the email address preferred by the assessee is noted to be manoj6999@gmail.com, the relevant portion of the appeal memo for the sake of clarity has been extracted as under: 14 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 11. In order of substantiate that the notice u/s 250 of the Act were not send on the email ID i.e., manoj6999@gmail.com, but are send on a different email ID i.e., dheeraj6999@gmail.com, Ld. AR placed before us copies of notices u/s 250 of the Act issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on 29.03.2024, 05.07.2024, 16.07.2024, 07.08.2024 and 16.09.2024 at page no. 48 to 68. It is apparent that the email ID on which all these notices are forwarded is dheeraj6999@gmail.com, which is not the email ID preferred by the assessee in the appeal memo (Form 35). Copy of one of the aforesaid email 15 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur communication attached therewith the impugned notices i.e., notice dated 29.03.2024 is extracted hereunder as an example for the sake of clarity: 16 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 17 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 12. Backed by aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer that on this ground itself the order passed u/s 250 of the Act is liable to be set aside. 13. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR, representing the revenue have placed her strong reliance on the orders of revenue authorities and have requested to uphold the same. 14. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements relied upon. Ostensibly, the facts placed before us by the Ld. AR that the assessee was not validly put to notice by the Ld. CIT(A), by serving the notices on the email ID preferred by him, therefore, the principle of natural justice has been violated, found to be correct. Under such circumstances, the multiple legal contentions raised by the Ld. AR representing the case of the assessee are not there before the Ld. CIT(A), though a legal ground challenging the issue of limitation while passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was assailed by the assessee, but in absence of any representation on behalf of the assessee before the First Appellate Authority, such contention are not adjudicated. Ld. CIT(A) had decided the issues on exparte basis as per his wisdom on the basis of material available before him. In view of such facts as the assessee was divested on account of sufficient cause for which he was not able to appear 18 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur before the Ld. CIT(A), however, it is also noticed that the assessee had not furnished requisite explanations towards the huge cash deposits in his bank account before the Ld. AO, which he could have offered before the First Appellate Authority, who had decided the appeal without properly communicating about date of hearing to the assessee as per mandated of law, thus, his decision was considering the perspective of the assessee. In view of such facts and circumstances, wherein both the parties have not complied the duties entrusted upon them, we do not find it appropriate to adjudicate the issue, which were not considered and adjudicated by revenue authorities, in accordance with the law, we, therefore, are of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to restore the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the issues afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 15. In the set aside appellate proceedings, the assessee would be at liberty to submit necessary explanation, evidence, submissions, and case laws, to support his contentions. 16. In result, ITA No. 500/RPR/2024 for the AY 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of our aforesaid observations. 19 ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 Chetan Sahu vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 17. As the issues, facts and circumstances in ITA 501/RPR/2024 for the AY 2014-15 are identical, as they are in ITA No. 500/RPR/2024 for AY 2013- 14 in the assessee’s own case, for which our decision shall apply mutatis mutandis, therefore, the appeal of assessee in ITA No. 501/RPR/2024 has also been rendered as partly allowed for statistical purposes, following our foregoing observations. 18. In combined result, ITA No. 500 & 501/RPR/2024 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/12/2024. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 27/12/2024 Vaibhav Shrivastav 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- Chetan Sahu 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. // स×याǒपत Ĥित True copy // "
Other Referred Cases
Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal dtd. 04.05.2022 (2022 SCC online SC 543), CIT v. B. N. Bhattarcharjee and Another (10 CTR 354)
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
1:1 Consultation on FEMA Compliance
₹1
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹0
Shipping and Logistics Agreement
₹0
HUF Deed
Mehul₹500
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Transfer Pricing and International Tax Reforms under Finance Bill, 2026: A Practical Overview
Team Counselvise - February 07, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026