CIAN AGRO INDUSTRIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,NAGPUR V. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

ITA 18/NAG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd., the appellant, challenging the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding an addition of Rs.3,39,56,500 under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained expenditure. The appellant argued that they were not given sufficient opportunity to present their case and that the inquiries made were inadequate, particularly concerning transactions with a specific party. The Tribunal noted the lack of proper adjudication due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the appellant's limited participation, leading to the decision to remand the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669032 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PANKAJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH P. SHAH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.18/Nag./2025 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. 4th Floor Gupta Tower, Science College Road Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 PAN – AAACU2499Q ……………. Appellant v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–2, Nagpur ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Hitesh P. Shah Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Kumar Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order – 23/06/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 12/11/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2018–19 by raising the following grounds:– 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:– 2 CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.18/Nag./2025 1. The Ld. A.O. and the Hon. CIT(A) erred in passing the assessment and appellate orders without providing sufficient opportunity to Appellant. 2. The Ld. A.O. failed to make proper inquiries, even though the appellant had denied any transactions with the party with the said PAN. 3. The Ld. A.O. and the Hon. CIT(A) miserably failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had sold refined oil and had not purchased any goods from the alleged party. 4. The Ld. A.O erred in making addition and the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,39,56,500/- U/S.69C of the Income Tax Act.” 2. The assessee admittedly except seeking adjournment on three occasions / notices issued by the learned CIT(A) failed to file the requisite submissions / documents and accordingly in the constrained circumstances, the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order affirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in making the addition of ` 3,39,56,500, on account of unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short \"the Act\"). Thus, the issue involved remained unadjudicated in its right perspective in a holistic manner. It is also a fact that assessment proceedings were partially carried out during the COVID–19 period. The learned Authorised Representative (for short \"the A.R.\") humbly prayed that the order may be remanded back for de novo adjudication. 3 CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.18/Nag./2025 3. Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that though the impugned order passed is an ex–parte order, but the learned CIT(A) has decided the issues on the basis of material available on record and in the context of issues involved wherein the learned CIT(A) observed vide Para–4.5 and 4.6 of his order that the issues involved are adjudicated in the absence of document / evidences and on the basis of material available on record. The purchases made from Shri Naresh Israni were held to be bogus in nature by the Assessing Officer. Further, the learned CIT(A) has also observed that the assessee failed to discharge his onus cast on him to prove the genuineness of the purchases. It is manifest that there was no participation by the assessee before the appellate authority. These fact reveals that the issue remained to be examined in its right perspective and in judicious manner and, therefore, in the interest of natural justice and fair play, this Bench is inclined to restore the entire matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. Suffice to say that the learned CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file the relevant submissions/documents which would essentially be required by the learned CIT(A). It is clarified that, in case of subsequent default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. 4 CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.18/Nag./2025 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23/06/2025 Sd/- N.K. CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 23/06/2025 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "