SUNRISE INFRATEC PRIVATE LIMITED,PANCHKULA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

ITA 1196/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sunrise Infratec Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A), Kanpur, for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant raised multiple grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A). The main issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the CIT(A), the legality of the additions made, and the procedural fairness in the hearing process. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the appellant's concerns and had not decided the case on its merits, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831315 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: T.N. SINGLA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 271(1)(c); 234B; 40A(3)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1196/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sunrise Infratec Private Limited, H.No. 858, Sector 4, Panchkula 134112 बनाम Vs. The ITO, Ward 3(5), Chandigarh èथायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAQCS4002D अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent ( HYBRID HEARING ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. T.N. Singla, CA (Virtual Mode) राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 05.01.2026 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, AM : Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Addl. / JCIT(A), Kanpur for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In the present appeal, the Assessee has raised as many as 17 grounds of appeal besides three additional Printed from counselvise.com 1196-Chd-2024 2 grounds of appeal vide letter dated 28.6.2025, which are reproduced as under: - Original grounds ( As per form 36): 1. That the order of Learned JCIT (A) is bad and against the facts and Law. 2. That the Ld. JCIT(A) wrongly decided the case of the appellant ex-parte, thus depriving the appellant of the right to present its case effectively and rebut the additions made by the authorities. 3. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions made by the AO without providing copy of original reasons recorded before issuing notice. 4. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions made by the AO without providing copy of any incriminating material and information relied upon in this case. 5. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions made by the AO without providing copy of transfer order u/s 127 of the Act from ITO Ward-1(3) to ITO Ward 3(5). 6. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions made by the AO without providing copy of satisfaction note of the AO and satisfaction note of the AO of searched party. Printed from counselvise.com 1196-Chd-2024 3 7. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions on account of impugned order by the AO without jurisdiction. 8. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions on AO's impugned order due to wrong permission taken from JCIT. 9. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly passed the order without jurisdiction. 10. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions made by AO amounting to Rs. 46,90,000/- on account of share capital/ share application money received by the assessee company in respect from the following a) Addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- as given by Sh. Anubhav Chauhan as per para 7.1 of the order of the Assessing Officer. b) Addition of Rs. 20,000/- as given by Sh. Chaitanya Aggarwal as per para 7.2 of the order of the Assessing Officer. c) Addition of Rs. 20,000/- as given by Sh. Raj Kumar Miittal as per para 7.3 of the order of the Assessing Officer. d) Addition of Rs. 20,000/- as given by Sh. Ashok Sharma per para 7.4 of the order of the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com 1196-Chd-2024 4 e) Addition of Rs. 20,000/- as given by Sh. Rajnish Kumar as per para 7.5 of the order of the Assessing Officer. f) Addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as given by Sh. Sorabh Tayal as per para 7.6 of the order of the Assessing Officer. g) Addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as given by Sh. Vivek Mohan Mittal as per para 7.7 of the order of the Assessing Officer. h) Addition of Rs. 5,30,000/- as given by Sh. Nitin Chauhan as per para 7.8 of the order of the Assessing Officer. i) Addition of Rs. 5,30,000/- as given by Sh. Sarvan Gupta as per para 7.9 of the order of the Assessing Officer. 11. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions made u/s 40A(3) by AO on account of payment made in cash of Rs. 98,00,000/- for purchase of land. 12. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions made by AO u/s 69A of the Act on account of advances received from customers of Rs. 10,43,29,000/-. 13. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions made by AO of Rs. 64,79,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of advances Printed from counselvise.com 1196-Chd-2024 5 received from customers for purchase of flats. 14. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld additions made by AO of Rs. 20,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of cash deposits made in the bank account on different dates. 15. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld penalty proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b). 16. That the Ld. JCIT (A) has wrongly upheld interest charged by the AO u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 17. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of appeal before the final hearing. Additional Grounds (dt. 28.6.2025) 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly upheld approval u/s 153D given by JCIT in. mechanical manner & without application of mind. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly upheld issuance of notice u/s 153C of I.T. Act without recording of satisfaction by the assessing officer of M/s Bansal Diamond Group, New Delhi. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly upheld order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 153C of the I.T. Act, 1961 Printed from counselvise.com 1196-Chd-2024 6 without seizure of any Incriminating document relating to the appellant during the search at third party. These Grounds of appeal are based on Law point and needs to be adjudicated. 4. At the very outset, it has been submitted by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving the sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard and to represent the case of the Assessee before him. It has further been submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to decide the case on merit. Accordingly, a prayer was made to send the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. 6. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the Assessee along with findings given by the authorities below. We find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) though has provided as many as eight opportunities to the Assessee of being heard by issuing of notices but the Assessee failed to comply with Printed from counselvise.com 1196-Chd-2024 7 the notices. Also, from the record it is not clear whether the notices were served upon the Assessee or not. We find that in any case, CIT(A) is supposed to pass order on merit on the basis of material available on record. That has not been done in this case. So, keeping in view the element of natural justice, we are of the considered view that an opportunity should be afforded to the Assessee to present its case before the CIT(A). In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present its case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The Assessee is also directed to present its case before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when called for and will not contribute in unnecessary delay in the hearing of the appeal. 9. In the result, all the appeal of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20.01.2026. Sd/- Sd/- ( LALIET KUMAR ) ( KRINWANT SAHAY) Judicial Member Accountant Member Printed from counselvise.com 1196-Chd-2024 8 “आर.क े.” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "