MAHAVIR INDUCTOMELT PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD V. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1068/AHD/2025

AI Insights

Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd. filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The primary issues in the appeals included the legality of notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent reassessment orders. The appellant contested the ex parte nature of the CIT(A)'s decision, the additions made under section 68 as unexplained cash credits, and various other procedural and substantive issues related to the reassessment. The tribunal noted the lack of a proper hearing and the opportunity for the appellant to present their case, leading to the decision to remand the matter back to the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771842 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT
• Assessee Lawyers: ASEEM L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 148; 145

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.1067-1068/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mahavir Inductomelt Pvt. Ltd., 7604, Phase-IV, GIDC Vatwa, Vatwa-382440. Ahmedabad, Gujarat. [PAN :AABCM8848 G] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Aseem L Thakkar, AR Respondent by: Shri Abhijit , Sr DR Date of Hearing 14.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.08.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- These two appeals are filed by the Assessee against the seperate orders of even dated 30.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2016-17. Since the issues raised in these two appeals are common, we are extracting the grounds of appeal in ITA No.1067/Ahd/2025 for A.Y 2015-16 for the purpose of adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1067-1068/Ahd/2025 Mahavir Inductomelt Vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2015-16- to 2016-17 - 2– ITA No.1067/Ahd/2025 for A.Y 2015-16 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing an Ex Parte order without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and equity requires to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which is illegal and bad in law and hence the same should be quashed and the reassessment made on the basis of the same requires to be cancelled. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is illegal and bad in law hence the same requires to be cancelled. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in undertaking reassessment proceedings under the Act only on the basis of information on record that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of making transactions through broker M/s. Odyssey Securities Pvt. Ltd. who used to facilitate accommodation entries. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer treating revenue receipt of Rs.7,98,33,261/- included in Profit and loss account of the appellant as alleged unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the I.T.Act, 1961 as deemed income under the head Income from other sources by treating it as beneficiary of accommodation entries as against business income offered by assessee company. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in completing the reassessment without providing copy of the statements, materials, documents etc. relied upon by him hence the same being against the principles of natural justice and law requires to be cancelled. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1067-1068/Ahd/2025 Mahavir Inductomelt Vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2015-16- to 2016-17 - 3– 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in refusing to grant an opportunity for cross examination of the persons making the statement on the basis of which the notice u/s. 148 has been issued and completing the reassessment making additions, in spite of specific request has been made by the Appellant Co. Hence the assessment so made being against the principles of natural justice and law is illegal and void ab initio. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition without rejecting the audited books of accounts u/s. 145 of the Act. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in computing the business loss at Rs.5,40,26,543/- as against business income of Rs.2,58,06,718/- shown by the assessee in the return of income filed. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,98,33,261/- made by the Assessing Officer as alleged unexplained credits u/s.68 of the 1.T.Act, 1961 which has already been considered by the appellant while computing the income under the head income from business at Rs.2,58,06,718/- as per return of income filed and further erred in taxing the same applying the provisions of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.62,913/- as claimed by the appellant u/s.80G of the I.T Act 1961. 12. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 3. At the outset, we find that the appeals of the assessee have been dismissed summarily by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that, given an opportunity due compliances will be made before the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the matter is remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication de-novo. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1067-1068/Ahd/2025 Mahavir Inductomelt Vs. DCIT Asst. Years : 2015-16- to 2016-17 - 4– 4. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 25.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 25.08.2025 MV आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "