MAYANK RAGHUWANSHI,SEVANI MALAVA V. ITO-1, ITARSI, HOSHANGABAD

ITA 852/IND/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mayank Raghuvanshi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which upheld an assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order had computed the assessee's income at Rs. 7,86,000 on a substantive basis and Rs. 9,00,000 on a protective basis, due to non-filing of the income tax return by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-18. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, rejecting the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the appeal on merits and directed a fresh assessment by the ITO, emphasizing the need for a fair computation of income based on material and evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705643 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUE TOO; ASHISH PORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S ASHISH GOYAL; N.D. PATWA; ARS
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority; Non compliance
• Section: 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 8 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर Ɋायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.852/Ind/2024 (AY: 2017-18) Mayank Raghuvanshi, H.No.124, Raghuvanshi Mohalla, Nirkhi, Ward No.9, Post Bisuni, Tech. Sewani Malava, Hoshangabad (PAN: BAPPR4247E) बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Itarsi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D.Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1069853973(1) dated 22.10.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 Page 2 of 8 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s. 144 of the Act, the assesee’s total income exigible to tax was computed and assessed at Rs.7,86,000/-. On substantive basis and Rs. 9,00,000/- on protective basis. The assessee has not filed his return of income. That the aforesaid assessment order is dated 26.12.2019 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. The core ground was that despite opportunities afforded by Ld. A.O the assessee has remained non compliant during original assessment proceedings consequently basis material on record Ld. A.O proceeded to pass the “impugned assessment order” u/s 144 and in 1st appellate proceedings the Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 Page 3 of 8 assessee has also produced additional evidence Under Rule 46A but has failed to justify any material ingredients of Rule 46A by virtue of which additional evidence could be taken on record. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are as under:- “1. The Ld AO was not justified in passing the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 2. The Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order, which is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by limitation, illegal, contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, liable to be annulled. 3. The Ld CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting our application for admission of additional evidences. 4. The Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,86,000/- as unexplained income u/s 69A. 5. The Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order of Ld AO applying section 115BBE which is contrary to the facts and the law. 6. The appellant carves leave to add, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal”. Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 Page 4 of 8 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 25.06.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee has placed on record of this Tribunal a paper book containing pages from 1 to 22 and so also an application Under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 from pages 23 to 31. It was contended by the Ld. AR that the “impugned order” is illegal, bad in law and not proper. It is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) without any application of mind and without any justifiable reason has not only upheld the “impugned assessment order” passed u/s 144 of the Act but simultaneously has rejected the application for additional evidence Under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules. It was also submitted that the Ld. A.O issued notice(s) u/s 142(1) of the Act wherein the assessee was called upon to file Return of Income instead the assessee filed submission and did not file Income Tax Return. It was contended that the assessee and his family members have few accounts with banks which belongs to him and his father. The assessee and his family members Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 Page 5 of 8 including father are agriculturist by profession and that they own agricultural land on which they are doing agriculture. During the 1st appellate stage they had produced and submitted certain evidence/additional evidence and Ld. CIT(A) in “impugned order” has erroneously held that no explanation in law has been submitted as to why additional evidence and/or new evidence should not be entertained. It was contended that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly interpreted Rule 46A and as a result of which evidences have remained untested. Therefore before this tribunal an elaborate paper book and so also an application Under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 too, have been filed to admit the additional evidence at this stage of proceedings. Per contra Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of the revenue has contended that the “impugned assessment order” is u/s 144 of the Act and further now there is also an application Under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. Further a part of income is on protective basis. Hence it would be in fitness of things that the matter be send back to Ld. A.O for fresh assessment order wherein the whole issue including evidences now produced could be well analysed and Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 Page 6 of 8 appreciated. In brief Ld. DR fairly stated that let there be a fair computation of income and assessment basis material and evidence instead of best assessment by Ld. A.O as income is required to be computed according to law. The Ld. A.O is an appropriate officer who would weigh and appreciate the evidence and shall do proper verification too. 4. Observations,findings & conclusions. 4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietery of the “impugned order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us. 4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case as presented to this Tribunal by both Ld. AR & Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by following due process . 4.3 We observe on bare simple perusal of the “impugned order” that the Ld. CIT(A) has simply upheld the “impugned assessment order” which was u/s 144 of the Act and further has rejected the application of additional evidence Under Rule 46A. The Ld. CIT(A) in quasi judicial capacity is required to Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 Page 7 of 8 adjudge and adjudicate at least the first appeal on meritorious grounds as “impugned assessment order” was admittedly u/s 144 of the Act. We are of the considered opinion that the first appellate authority must adjudge and adjudicate at least the first appeal on merits as determination of correct income exigible to tax by due process is must under the Act and even otherwise as no tax can be levied and collected save and except according to law by following due process. Even the Ld. DR for revenue too has opined during the course of the hearing that Ld. A.O is right and competent authority in the facts and circumstances of the case to carry out due verification basis material/evidence on record. 4.4 We are further of the considered view that now since assessee has filed an application for additional evidence before us (supra) therefore it would be just fair and convenient and in the interest of ends of justice that the matter be examined afresh by Ld. A.O. 4.5 In view of the aforesaid we set aside the “impugned order” as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld. A.O on denovo basis. Mayank Raghuvanshi ITA No. 852/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 Page 8 of 8 5. Order 5.1 In the premises drawn up by us we set aside the “impugned order” and remand back to Ld. A.O to pass a fresh order on denovo basis. 5.2 In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 30.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक / Dated : 30/06/2025 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "