OMAX MINERALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 420/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur, concerning an assessment year 2015-16. The appeal was primarily against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was based on unaccounted expenditure identified during a scrutiny assessment following a survey and search operation. The Tribunal found that the notices issued for the hearing were insufficient, providing less than the 'reasonable period of fifteen days' for response, thus breaching the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 776414 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2025
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: St. Paul's Anglo Indian Education Society vs. Patna High Court
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBASH AGRAWAL; LD.
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 271(1)(c); 132; 139; 133A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (through hybrid hearing) ITAT-Raipur Page 1 of 4 BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 420/RPR/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Office Block-51, Omax Minerals Private Limited, Krishna Vihar, Raigarh 496001, Chhattisgarh, India PAN: AABCO5774H ……….Appellant V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle (2), Raipur, C.G. ……….Respondent Appearances Assessee by: Mr Subash Agrawal, [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Dr. Priyanka Patel [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 15/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16/09/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, The present appeal is filed by the assessee against DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075107538(1) dt. 27/03/2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] by Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals, Raipur-3, [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] which in turn leapt out of Assessment order passed u/s 153C passed by Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur[‘Ld. AO’] anent to assessment year 2015-16[‘AY’]. Printed from counselvise.com Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT ITA No. 420/RPR/2025 ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 4 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that; a survey u/s 133A was carried out at the business premises of M/s Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd along with search and seizure action u/s 132 was conducted at the business/residential premises of M/s R. K. Transport and Construction Ltd., R. R. Fero Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Vedant Infrastructure, Parijat Barter Pvt. Ltd, Satyanarayan Agrawal 65A, Transport Nagar, Korba (C.G.). Consequently, a notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued upon the assessee, in response thereto the assessee company filed its submission & confirmed to treat the return of income filed by it u/s 139 of the Act the as the return filed u/s 153C of the Act. The said return was subjected to scrutiny wherein addition towards unaccounted expenditure ₹4,37,260/- was made and consequential assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act was passed assessing total income at ₹2,87,45,000/-. In view thereof penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particular and furnished inaccurate particulars of income were initiated. In the course of such penalty proceedings the notices including show cause notice issued to the assessee went unattended. In the absence of any evidence seeking pardon from levy of penalty and rebuttable against such penalty proceedings, the consequential proceedings were Printed from counselvise.com Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT ITA No. 420/RPR/2025 ITAT-Raipur Page 3 of 4 culminated by the Ld. AO by imposing 100% of tax sought to be evaded as per explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully challenged the former imposition before Ld. First Appellate Authority [‘Ld. FAA’]. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in the present appeal on as many as four grounds. 4. Without touching the merits and grounds of appeal, we have heard the rival parties on limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of appeal by Ld. CIT(A) and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused the material placed on record and considered the facts in the light of settled position of law. We observed that in the course of first appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) while adjudicating the issue assailed in appeal has provided barely two opportunities to the appellant assessee. It was also noted that vide notices dt 10/03/2025 & 19/03/2025 the hearings were fixed on 17/03/2025 and 24/03/2025 respectively. I n the event of no response from assessee, the proceedings were ceased ex-parte whereby the penalty was confirmed. A cursory look at these twin notices and time allowed thereby reveals that, these notices were issued allowing less than ‘reasonable period of fifteen days’ to respond. Printed from counselvise.com Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT ITA No. 420/RPR/2025 ITAT-Raipur Page 4 of 4 5. The Hon’ble High court of Patna judgement in ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian Education Society’ [2003, 262 ITR 377 (Pat)]’ has categorically held that, an adjudication is unjustified if an assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents to substantiate claims. In the present case since twin notices of hearing allowed insufficient time and opportunity to the appellant, therefore the proceedings suffered from natural justice, thus necessitating us to grant one more reasonable opportunity to the appellant to comply with notices and contest the appeal on merits which can only be possible on remand of this case to Ld. CIT(A). In view thereof, without offering any comments on merits, we set-aside the impugned order and remand with a direction deal therewith de- novo in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Ordered accordingly. 6. In result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned herein before. -S/d- -S/d- PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Raipur/Dt: 16th September, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "