MINAKSHI COTEX,BARWANI V. ACIT/DCIT , KHANDWA

ITA 214/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Minakshi Cotex, the appellant, contesting an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which significantly increased their taxable income for the assessment year 2017-18. The additions made included unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period, discrepancies in debtor accounts, and differences in stock valuations, among others. The first appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to lack of substantive evidence provided by the appellant. The Tribunal found procedural lapses, including the non-provision of necessary documents to the appellant despite requests under the RTI Act, and the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773843 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH PORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHREYA JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 7 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.214/Ind/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Minakshi Cotex, A.B. Road, Sendhwa, Dist. Barwani (PAN:AAKFM6462C) बनाम/ Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Khandwa (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Shreya Jain, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, DR Date of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 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- 25/1072884253(1) dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18 Printed from counselvise.com Minakshi Cotex ITA No.214/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 Page 2 of 7 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 u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee’s total income exigible to tax was computed at Rs.3,63,61,230/-. The assessee’s returned income was at Rs.8,92,600/-. The addition on account of unexplained cash deposited during the demonetization period was at Rs.90,00,000/-. The addition on account of difference in the debtors account was at Rs.30,00,000/-. The addition on account of the difference in the opening stock of cotton account was at Rs.2,32,68,634/-. The addition on account of low net profit was at Rs.2,00,000/-. That the aforesaid assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023005628(1) and that the same is dated 24.12.2019, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee on the Printed from counselvise.com Minakshi Cotex ITA No.214/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 Page 3 of 7 grounds and reasons stated therein. The core ground and reason for the dismissal of the 1st appeal was as under:- “6. In the instance of the case, the appellant has failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. The appeal is dismissed without going into the merit of the case as the appellant has failed to substantiate its claim with supporting documentary evidence. Moreover, without substantive evidence, the grievance raised by the appellant could not be verified, hence, addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 3,54,68,630/- in his assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 24/12/2019 is hereby confirmed. 6.1. In the result, the appeal is \"dismissed.\" 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 23.09.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia contended that the “impugned order” is illegal, bad in law and not proper. It deserves to be set aside by this Tribunal. It was also contended by the Ld. AR that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was ever served to the assessee before the assessment proceedings commended before the Ld. A.O. It was also urged that the “impugned order” is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. The Ld. AR placed reliance on para 4 of the “impugned order” and contended that despite making an application under the RTI Printed from counselvise.com Minakshi Cotex ITA No.214/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 Page 4 of 7 Act wherein certain documents were sought. No such documents are provided to the assessee basis which they could set up their case. The Ld. AR finally prayed that the “impugned order” be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on denovo basis. Per contra the Ld. DR appearing for and on behalf of Revenue contended that the revenue has no objection if the “impugned order” is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis. 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 the Ld. AR & the Ld. DR to determine the legality, validity of the “impugned order” basis law and by following the due process. Printed from counselvise.com Minakshi Cotex ITA No.214/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 Page 5 of 7 4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the rival contentions are of the considered opinion that the “impugned order” is bad in law, and cannot be sustained as it is clearly recorded in para 4 of “impugned order”. “It is also submitted that we have filed an application under RTI Act 2005 before the Ld. Assessing Officer on 18.04.2024 for obtaining necessary evidences to be filed before your honour”. The Ld. CIT(A) in the “impugned order” has also recorded that “The reason for this request is that we have filed an application under RTI on 18.04.2024 vide Acknowledgement No. 652612410014 for obtaining certain documents, statement etc. from Ld. AO which are necessary for making submission before your honour and same are yet not provided by the Ld. AO. Therefore, we have also filed a reminder application on 17.01.2025 to provide the required documents, statement as mentioned in the RTI application. But till date the Ld AO has not provided required documents. Copy of RTI Application and reminder application are enclosed herewith”. Even during the hearing the Ld. AR has made grievance of the aforesaid plea. The Ld. AR was emphatical Printed from counselvise.com Minakshi Cotex ITA No.214/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 Page 6 of 7 that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee and till date despite RTI application the revenue has failed to provide the requisite documents as desired. We therefore hold that the “impugned order” is passed in a summary manner and merits of the case are not examined. This tribunal desires meritorious disposal of the first appeal. The grievance of the assessee on non supply of requisite documents to enable them to defend is bonafide and genuine. The Ld. DR too has concurred with the submissions made by the Ld. AR in this regard. 4.4 In view of aforesaid we set aside the “impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis. The Ld. CIT(A) ie expected to pass a reasoned order. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the department. The department is directed to give requisite documents to the assessee as desired which are relevant to the proceedings. 5. Order 5.1 In view of the aforesaid the “impugned order” is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis with the directions as aforesaid. Printed from counselvise.com Minakshi Cotex ITA No.214/Ind/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 Page 7 of 7 5.2 In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 24.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक / Dated : 24.09.2025 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 Printed from counselvise.com "