SUBHASH STONE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,NAINITAL V. ACIT(C.C), ALLAHABAD

ITA 103/ALLD/2023

AI Insights

This case involves a series of appeals by M/s Subhash Stone Industries Pvt. Ltd. against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for various assessment years. The appeals were consolidated due to their related nature, stemming from a search and seizure operation conducted on December 3, 2011, at the premises of the Vaish Group of Cases. The primary contention was the lack of a proper hearing opportunity provided to the assessee, which led to ex-parte decisions by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments and decided to remand the cases for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315646 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMALENDU NATH MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN GODBOLE
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2019, 99/Alld/2023 100/Alld/23, 102/Alld/23 & 103/Alld/23 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2019 Assessment Year:2011-12 I.T.A. No.99/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2005-06 I.T.A. No.100/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2009-10 I.T.A. No.102/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2006-07 I.T.A. No.103/Alld/2023 Assessment Year:2007-08 M/s Subhash Stone Industries Pvt. Ltd., 2-116/14, O Ambika Vihar Haldwani, Nainital (Uttarakhand) PAN:AABCR0021Q Vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle, Allahabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent by Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT (D.R.) Date of hearing 09/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 14/05/2025 I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2019, 99/Alld/2023 100/Alld/23, 102/Alld/23 & 103/Alld/23 2 O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. This is a bunch of five appeals, pertaining to the same assessee, filed against separate impugned appellate orders dated 12/02/2019, 23/05/2023, 25/05/2023, 23/05/2023 and 02/05/2023 respectively passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. All the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of through this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a search & seizure operation was carried out on 03/12/2011 at the residential and business premises belonging to Vaish Group of Cases. In the search action, certain business premises of the group were covered. The assessments were completed in all the above assessment years by making various additions. Aggrieved with the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeals of the assessee ex-parte in I.T.A. No.99/Alld/2023, 100/Alld/2023, 102/Alld/2023 and 103/Alld/2023. In I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2019, the claim of the assessee is that the assessee was not provided proper opportunity of hearing for explaining the facts on the points of dispute. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the assessee, during the course of hearing, contended that learned CIT(A) was not justified in passing the ex-parte orders without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without considering the facts and evidences placed on record. Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that in case an opportunity is I.T.A. No.43/Alld/2019, 99/Alld/2023 100/Alld/23, 102/Alld/23 & 103/Alld/23 3 provided then the assessee would demonstrate before the learned CIT(A) the reasons for non-compliance to the statutory notices issued. 4. On the other hand, learned CIT (D.R.) supported the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. On perusal of records, it is seen that in these cases, proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee for explaining the facts on the points in dispute. It would be in the interest of substantive justice if the matter is remanded back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of learned CIT(A) and remand back all the cases to his file for adjudicating the issues afresh in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. (Orders pronounced on 14/05/2025 in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the I.T.A.T. Rules) Sd/. Sd/. (SANJAY AWASTHI) (SUBHASH MALGURIA ) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated:14/05/2025 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. D.R. ITAT, Lucknow "