M/S LOHIA MARBALES,RANCHI V. ITO WARD 1(1), RANCHI

ITA 332/RAN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals filed by M/s. Lohia Marbles against the orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The primary issue in these appeals was the addition made by the Assessing Officer regarding cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, who is a dealer in marble. The assessee argued that the cash collected from marble sales was immediately paid to the suppliers, a fact evident from the bank statements. The Tribunal noted that both the assessment orders and the CIT(A)'s orders were exparte, as the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence or representation at earlier stages. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a thorough examination and a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716533 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2024
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KHUBCHANDT PANDYA
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVESH PODDAR

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE S/ RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year M/s. Lohia Marbles, ITKI Road, Besides Rajdhani Body Builder, Ranchi PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Revenue Per Bench These are of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated No.CIT(A),NFAC/2012 No.CIT(A),NFAC/2013 CIT(A), NFAC/2015 2016-17, respectively IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.329 to 332/RAN/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2016-17 M/s. Lohia Marbles, ITKI Road, Besides Rajdhani Body Builder, Ranchi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Ranchi .AAEFL 9761 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue by : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Date of Hearing : 22/08/202 Date of Pronouncement : 22/08/2 O R D E R These are appeals filed by the assessee against the of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 20.7.2024 NFAC/2012-13/10169342 and dt. 29.6.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A),NFAC/2013-14/10192682, CIT(A),NFAC/2014-15/10169347 and CIT(A), NFAC/2015-16/10310272 for the assessment year 17, respectively . P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 17 Income Tax Officer, Ward Respondent) Devesh Poddar, Adv ld Sr DR 2025 2025 separate orders 20.7.2024 in Appeal dt. 29.6.2024 in Appeal 15/10169347 and for the assessment years 2013-14 to Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.329 to 332/RAN/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2016-17 P a g e 2 | 4 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld AR appeared for the assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, ld Sr DR represented on behalf of the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that in all the appeals, a single issue is involved being against the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition in respect of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. It was the submission that the assessee is a dealer in Marble. It was the submission that Asst. Year 2013-14 is the first year of business. It was the submission that the assessee had admittedly collected the cash in respect of sale of Marbles. It was the submission that immediately after the sale consideration collected; same was paid to the suppliers of Marble also. This was evident from the bank account of the assessee. It was the submission that admittedly, the assessee had not represented before the AO nor before the ld CIT(A) with all the details. It was the prayer that the assessee may be granted another opportunity to represent its issue before the Assessing Officer. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment orders shows that these are practically exparte assessment orders and the orders of ld CIT(A) are also exparte. Even before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has not been able to produce any evidences. This Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.329 to 332/RAN/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2016-17 P a g e 3 | 4 being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall examine whether the sale consideration which has been received by the assessee has actually been paid to suppliers. If the payments have been paid to the suppliers, then the relief is to be granted to the assessee. We also observe that all the legal issues shall left upon in this case. 6. In the result, appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 22/08/2025. (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 22/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Lohia Marbles, ITKI Road, Besides Rajdhani Body Builder, Ranchi 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Ranchi 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Ranchi 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.329 to 332/RAN/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2016-17 P a g e 4 | 4 By order Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, Ranchi Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 22.8.25 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 22..8.25 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the OS 9. Date on which file goes to the SPS 10. Date of dispatch of Order. Printed from counselvise.com "