UBV INFRASTRUCTURES LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITSSA 24/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves UBV Infrastructures Limited appealing against the orders of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The appeals were initially time-barred by 46 days, for which a condonation petition was filed. The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the financial hardships faced by the assessee. The main legal contention in the appeals was the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a proper opportunity of hearing before the assessment order was passed. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC did not address the issue of violation of natural justice in their decision and remanded the case for a fresh assessment on this ground.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669311 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, Dushyant Mainali
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: B SUBRAMANYAM
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Question of law; Rejection of books of accounts; Principle of natural justice; TDS

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2018-19 UBV Infrastructures Limited 32, Golden Home, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) PAN: AABCR0696P ........अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri B Subramanyam, CA Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2025 2 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 31.01.2025 for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the captioned appeals are time barred by 46 days. The Ld. Counsel has filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit praying for condonation of delay of 46 days each in filing of these appeals. The condonation petition and affidavit sworn in by Shri Ranjodh Singh Rana, CEO of M/s.UBV Infrastructure Limited is made part of this order and extracted as follows: 3 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 4 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 3. The Ld. Sr. DR principally opposed the condonation of delay but could not place on record any evidence to demonstrate that such delay caused was intentional or through deliberate conduct on the part of the assessee. 4. Be that as it may after careful consideration of the submissions of the parties as well as contents in the affidavit and condonation petition, we are of the considered view that such delay was caused for the fact that in the last four years there was no business activities of the assessee and they were running into financial loss, therefore, even applying the principles of preponderance of human probabilities, in such scenario, it was not possible for the assessee to look into the income tax matter preferring the appeal and therefore, such delay is categorized within the purview of the circumstances beyond the control of the assesse and are definitely not deliberate or malafide regarding the conduct of the assessee. Taking guidance from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025, wherein it was held and observed that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of 5 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025, after relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur (supra) had held that a justice oriented and liberal approach be adopted while considering the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. 5. That in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding the condonation of delay in respect of case of land acquisition has observed and held on the aspect of delay that although the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the merits of the case could not be discarded solely on the ground of delay. A liberal approach, therefore, should be taken in condoning the delay when limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and obstructs the substantial justice. In other words, the objective of the court should be to deliver substantial justice coupled with liberal and judicious approach while deciding the issue of limitation and whenever it is found that the case has merits which needs to be addressed substantially, in such case, the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the said delay of 46 days each 6 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 involved in the captioned appeals is condoned and appeals are heard on merits. 6. The parties herein conceded that the facts and circumstances in all these appeals and the issue involved are similar and identical. Having heard the parties, the matters are taken up together and disposed of vide this consolidated order. 7. That even without going into the merits of the matters, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that they had taken legal ground even before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC through “Grounds of appeal No.1 & 2” as per Form 35 wherein it was contended that during the assessment proceedings, the A.O while making addition of 15% of the alleged discrepancies found during the such proceedings had not provided any show cause notice i.e. no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the assessee. In this regard, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has held and observed as follows: “During the course of appeal proceedings, I have carefully perused the assessment order and also perused the submission of the assessee and find that the assessee has challenged in ground no.1 & 2 that the assessee was not provided proper opportunity before passing assessment order and making an addition ©15%. The assessee vide its reply dated 31.12.2024 has also submitted that the Assessing Officer has rejected the books of accounts without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without any specific finding. Therefore, the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure as per section 145(3) of the Act. I find in the 7 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 assessment order that the assessee itself rejected its books of accounts after search & seizure operation. I find that when the assessee itself has not relied upon its books of accounts and has rejected them then certainly in any case the books of accounts of the assessee cannot be relied upon. In my view no specific finding is required to reject the books of accounts in the case of assessee, since the assessee itself has not relied on its own books of accounts. The question of law is how is it possible for the Assessing Officer to rely on the books of accounts of the assessee when the assessee itself does not rely on its books of accounts and their accuracy. This question is the answer of the assessee's claim. Thus, ground nos. 1 and 2 of appeal are dismissed as having no merit.” 8. That as evident from afore-stated, the “Grounds of appeal No.1 & 2” raised by the assessee stating that the A.O had not provided proper opportunity of hearing before passing assessment order and making addition of 15%, whereas, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in its entire findings on these grounds has only adjudicated and deliberated upon the rejection of books of account and applicability of Section 145(3) of the Act but is absolutely silent whether principles of natural justice were violated in respect of the case of the assessee or not for which essentially these grounds were assailed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. In absence of any such findings, the adjudication on legal ground by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC becomes perverse and is vitiated as grounds disposed off summarily. That, the principles of natural justice forms the foundation for dispensing justice and is mandatory for the quasi-judicial authorities to determine whether the same were followed or not. 8 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of adequate natural justice in the judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. This principle ensures fairness, reasonableness and due process preventing arbitrary action and upholding fundamentality of the legal process. In the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 597, the Hon’ble Apex Court expanded the scope of natural justice holding that any action violating fairness, reasonableness and due process is arbitrary and unconstitutional. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, 1967 AIR 1269, the Hon’ble Apex Court has established that even administrative orders affecting a person’s rights must adhere to the principles of natural justice. There are certain principles ensuring within the parameters of natural justice, one of them is “audi alterm partem” which mandates that before taking any action against the party, they must be given an opportunity to be heard and present their case. 10. The right to be heard is the cornerstone of natural justice and in this regard in the case before the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in 2022 regarding a practising advocate, Dushyant Mainali (CLR No.22/2022) wherein the Hon’ble High Court had observed that the said advocate Mainali was accused of professional misconduct for allegedly misleading the litigant and causing the delay in filing revisional petition. The Hon’ble 9 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 High Court directed the Bar Counsel of Uttarakhand to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer. Mainali challenged these remarks before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, contending that he was neither a party to the case before the High Court nor was involved in any capacity. The remarks, therefore, not only tarnished his professional reputation but were also made in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.15191/2022, arising out of a Special Leave Petition filed by Dushyant Mainali examined the Hon’ble High Court’s order and found the approach to be legally untenable. Hon’ble Justice Gavai (as he was at that time) speaking for the bench, noted that “we are of the considered view that the approach of the High Court in making the observations against the appellant without giving him any opportunity of being heard is totally unsustainable in law.” The bench went on to delete the entire portion of the high court’s order that contained the contentious remarks and directives against Mainali, holding that such a move violates the fundamental principles of fairness and due process. 11. Thus, as per the binding judgment afore-stated and applying it to the facts of the captioned appeals, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had not passed order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act and has not spelled out any findings whether principles of natural justice were violated by the A.O while framing the assessment in the case of the assessee. That all throughout, it has been vehemently 10 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 contended by the Ld. Counsel that such opportunity was not given to the assessee by the A.O. The Ld. Sr. DR also could not place on record any evidence to show that opportunity of hearing was provided by the A.O. In absence of any submission from Ld. Sr. DR the issue in effect remains unaltered as claimed by the assessee that the principles of natural justice were not followed at the assessment stage. Therefore, balancing scales of justice, these matters need to be adjudicated before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC on the very premise of determining the validity of the claim raised in the legal ground that no show cause notice for hearing were issued by the A.O before completing the assessment in the case of the assessee. That after due enquiry, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC shall pass a speaking order as per law while complying with the principles of natural justice. At the same time, it is also mandatory for the assessee to respond to the hearing notices from the office of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and represent on merits. 12. As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 11 UBV Infrastructures Limited Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Raipur (C.G.) IT(SS)A Nos. 20 to 25/RPR/2025 13. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th day of June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 26th June, 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, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "