PARAMJEET SINGH PLAHA,RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGAON

ITA 531/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Paramjeet Singh Plaha, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, which confirmed an assessment made under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon. The primary contention was the alleged double taxation of an amount of Rs.4,97,777, which was included as 'Bank Interest Commodity profit' in the profit and loss account and also in the computation of income. The appellant argued that this led to an unjustified and excessive tax liability. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and remanded the case for further investigation to ascertain the facts and ensure justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792599 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ G MORYANI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries
• Section: 144; 234B

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR (Through Virtual Hearing) Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.531/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Paramjeet Singh Plaha C/o. Pritpal Singh, Pritpal Farm, VIP Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 PAN: AKDPP4980D .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Manoj G Moryani, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 02.12.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 25.08.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming order passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act by NFAC, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 2. On the facts and circumstances- of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC erred in not considering that the notice u/s.148 cannot be issued beyond 3 years in case of escapement of income is less than 50 lacs, even the CIT(A) NFAC erred in not considering that notice u/s.148 was issued without DIN by jurisdictional assessing officer instead of faceless assessing officer, therefore the assessment framed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, NFAC erred in not considering that the Ld. assessing officer has not issued notices to all the legal heirs and without going into the merits of the case passed order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income tax Act which is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not considering the additional ground raised by the assessee that the notice issued u/s.148 without following the due procedure as prescribed in section 151 of the income tax Act, 1961 and without considering the submission of the therefore the notice issued u/s.148 is illegal, bad in law. 5. The learned CIT(A), NFAC, failed to consider that assessing officer completed the assessment without issuing draft assessment order; therefore order pass u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income tax Act is invalid, illegal and bad in law. 6. On the facts and circumstances the learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have accepted that amount received towards sale of commodity duly shown in bank statement and return of Printed from counselvise.com 3 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 income duly explained by the assessee, therefore continuing the amount deposited as unexplained money u/s. 69A by the assessing officer at Rs.4,97,777/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 7. On the facts and circumstances the learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in not accepting that the assessee has received the amount towards sale of commodity and not accommodation entries as sale purchase duly shown in contract notes and the bank statement and accepted in earlier year, therefore making double addition u/s.69A at Rs.4,97,777/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 8. On the facts and circumstances the learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have accepted that the assessing officer, erred in relying on the statements, which was recorded behind the back of the assessee and opportunity to cross examine the person statement which department retying, therefore assessment framed is illegal, invalid and bad in law and against the principle of natural justice; 9. The assessee denied the liability of interest charges u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, the same may kindly be deleted. 10. The appellant craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. The deceased assessee through legal heir and the Ld. Counsel for the assessee have assailed both legal grounds as well as grounds on merits. At the time of hearing virtually, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Ground of appeal No.7 submitted that it is a case of double taxation in the hands of the assessee and hence, the addition of Rs.4,97,777/- was unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. That since the assessee has pleaded immunity from the rigors of taxation on the ground that since they have already offered the same amount for taxation in their Printed from counselvise.com 4 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 return of income and if this amount is again added, it would further arbitrarily be an added liability to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of substantive justice, it would be appropriate to first adjudicate on this ground and accordingly, the Ld. Sr. DR was directed to file report in this regard. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR had submitted a report from the ITO-1, Rajnandgaon, dated 25.11.2025 which is extracted as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 5 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 6 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 7 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 In addition to the said report, the Ld. Sr. DR also made submission which is extracted as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 8 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 4. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the profit and loss A/c in the paper book submitted that they have included under the head indirect income “Bank Interest Commodity profit” at Rs.4,97,777/-. The relevant profit and loss A/c is extracted as follows: Printed from counselvise.com 9 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 5. The Ld. Counsel further drew attention of the Bench to the computation wherein the net profit (i.e. commodity profit) as per profit & loss A/c after deducting various expenses has been declared to the department at Rs.4,32,506/-. In this manner, the Ld. Counsel demonstrated that already the amount has been provided in the account statements and has been demonstrated in the computation, therefore, the same cannot be doubly added to the income of the assessee. 6. Having carefully considered the documents on record, having heard the parties herein, it is a case where the assessee pleads that the amount has been taxed twice to his income. It has been brought to the notice of the Bench that so far as profit and loss A/c is concerned, they have Printed from counselvise.com 10 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 included as “Bank Interest Commodity profit” at Rs.4,97,777/- and similarly, in the computation, net profit arrived at was Rs.4,32,506/-. It is observed that the report from the department does not spell out whether the addition made is of the same amount which already the assessee had disclosed in the computation of income. In these circumstances, in order to ascertain the rights and liabilities of the assessee, it is pertinent to obtain ground report regarding the issue and hence, in the interest of substantive justice, I set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remand the matter back to its file with a direction that the said authority shall obtain a report from the A.O regarding contention raised by the assessee on the issue of double taxation. If it is found that the amount has been charged doubly to tax in the hands of the assessee, then the said authority shall provide appropriate relief to the assessee as per law. The assessee is also directed to respond to the hearing notices before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 7. Before parting, it is also pertinent to mention that since the core issue of double taxation needs verification from the revenue authorities, hence, all other grounds raised before this Bench becomes academic only. At the same time, case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel at this juncture again becomes academic in nature. Printed from counselvise.com 11 Paramjeet Singh Plaha Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon ITA No.531/RPR/2025 8. As per the above terms, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 02nd day of December, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 02nd December, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "