SURESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL,LA GARDINA APP. SHREE NAGAR, INDORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN, WHITE CHURCH ROAD, INDORE

ITA 266/IND/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Suresh Kumar Kejriwal, who appealed against the protective additions made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under sections 144 and 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The additions were related to deposits and credit entries in bank accounts of M/s Pinnacle Enterprises, a concern run by Shri Pratik Kejriwal, Suresh's son. The ITO had made substantive additions in Shri Pratik Kejriwal's hands and protective additions in Suresh's hands. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) upheld these additions, leading to the current appeals. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately adjudicated the appeals and thus restored the matter for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a decision post the resolution of related appeals involving Shri Pratik Kejriwal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788312 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: FORASSESSEEDREWUSTOTHEASSESSMENTORDERSPASSEDBYAO; SHRIANOOPSINGH; LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI PAVAN VED; LD
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 7 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, 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.266 & 267/Ind/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Suresh Kumar Kejriwal, 247, LA Gardina App. Shree Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Vs. ITO, Ward 3(2) Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AJTPK1868L Assessee by Shri Pavan Ved, Ld. AR Revenue by Shri Anoop Singh, CIT & Ld. DR Date of Hearing 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by two separate orders of first-appeal, both dated 19.03.2024 and both passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders, both dated 15.11.2019 and both passed by learned ITO- 3(2), Indore [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Years [“AY”] 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively, the assessee Printed from counselvise.com Suresh Kumar Kejriwal ITA No. 266 & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 2 of 7 has filed the captioned twin appeals on the grounds mentioned in respective Appeal Memos (Form No. 36). 2. Ld. AR for assessee drew us to the assessment-orders passed by AO and demonstrated that the AO has made protective addition of Rs. 8,52,65,008/- in AY 2012-13 and Rs. 4,90,42,678/- in AY 2013-14. These protective additions relate to the deposits/credit entries in Bank A/cs in the name of M/s Pinnacle Enterprises, a proprietary concern run by Shri Pratik Kejriwal (son of assessee). Ld. AR submitted that the AO has made substantive additions in the hands of Shri Pratik Kejriwal and simultaneously protective additions in the hands of assessee. On a query by bench as to the status of substantive additions in the hands of Shri Pratik Kejriwal, Ld. AR submitted that to the best of his knowledge, the first- appeals of Shri Pratik Kejriwal are pending for disposal before CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) has decided the first-appeals of present assessee upholding the protective additions. There was some deliberation on this issue in open court and ultimately the bench came to a conclusion to restore these appeals also at the level of CIT(A) since the protective additions are very much connected to the substantive additions. Furthermore, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of assessee, although for non-prosecution, and merely upheld the orders of AO without making apt adjudication in accordance with provisions of 250(6) of the Act which provides “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason Printed from counselvise.com Suresh Kumar Kejriwal ITA No. 266 & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 3 of 7 for the decision.”, therefore also the present matters are fit for restoration to CIT(A). We accordingly restore these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication of these matters after or alongwith disposal of appeals of Mr. Pratik Kejriwal. The assessee is directed to remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 3. There is a filing delay in both of these appeals. The assessee has filed following affidavit for condonation of delay: Printed from counselvise.com Suresh Kumar Kejriwal ITA No. 266 & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 4 of 7 Printed from counselvise.com Suresh Kumar Kejriwal ITA No. 266 & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 5 of 7 Printed from counselvise.com Suresh Kumar Kejriwal ITA No. 266 & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 6 of 7 Printed from counselvise.com Suresh Kumar Kejriwal ITA No. 266 & 267/Ind/2025 - AY 2012-13 & 2013-14 Page 7 of 7 4. Considering the averments made in affidavit and in view of the peculiar fact that the present assessee’s matters involve protective additions in respect of substantive additions made in the hands of another assessee Shri Pratik Kejriwal and hence the present matters need to be decided after considering the outcome of substantive additions, the delay is condoned. 5. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 17/11/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 27/11/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYSr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore Printed from counselvise.com "