UMIYAJI STEEL INDUSTRIES,RAJKOT V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT

ITA 183/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Umiyaji Steel Industries appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which had dismissed their appeal against the Assessing Officer's order. The Assessing Officer had made several additions to the assessee's income, citing unexplained cash receipts and unaccounted cash introduced by partners. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unaware of the appellate proceedings due to their ex-Chartered Accountant not informing them, and thus allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanding the case for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717523 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMIR BHUPTANI; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DIESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 183/RJT/2025 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Umiyaji Steel Industries, Survey No. 127, Plot No. 68, Nr. Tulsi Forge, SIDC Main Road, Veraval (Shapar) – 360024 Vs . The Income Tax Officer, wd – 1(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAEFU1336R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”),Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), dated 12.03.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer, u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 11.12.2017. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as followed: Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 183/RJT/2025 A. Y.2015-16 Urmilaji Steel Industries v. ITO “Ld CITA) erred in law as well as on facts in passing the ex-parte appellate order us 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and without appropriate jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. 2 Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in presuming that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal 3. Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in its appeal memo and thereby dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and without passing any comment on merit. 4. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in assessing total income of the appellant firm at Rs. 4,45,230/- as against the returned income of Rs. NIL Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 5. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 85,234/- on account of unexplained cash receipt from job work. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 6. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- on account of unexplained cash receipt from M/s. Calibar Industries. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same. 7. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of unexplained source of capital introduced in form of cash by partners. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the same.” 3. At the outset, that the appeal filed late by 294 days. The Ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by Affidavit. The application for delay is as under; “1. In the cave the appellate order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY 2015 16 has been passed on 12th March, 2024 2 In view of the same the present appeal ought to have been filed before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on or before 31 May, 2024 However, this appeal is filed today on 21 March, 2025 and accordingly there is delay of 294 days The delay has been caused on account of reasonable reasons and circumstances stated hereunder a The appellate proceeding in the case of the appellant firm has been concluded in faceless manner. The assessment proceeding was handled by the ex-Chartered Accountant of the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal through the ex-CA b. In the course of the appellate proceeding all the notices of hearing were uploaded on web-portal of the Income Tax Department and also served on email viz. [e-mail], which was belonging to the ex-CA of the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 183/RJT/2025 A. Y.2015-16 Urmilaji Steel Industries v. ITO c Under such circumstances the appellant was completely unaware of the notices issued by Id. CIT(A) during the course of the appellate proceeding as well as about the appellate order passed. d. Recently, in the first week of March-2025 partner of the appellant firm, on hearing advertisement about the scheme by the Income Tax Department, approached the council of the appeal to know about the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The council of the appellant verified the e- proceeding tab and on verification of the same it was realized that the appellate order has been passed in ex-parte and hence the appellant was advised to prepare and file the appeal before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. e. Under such circumstances the appeal is prepared and filed on today i.e. 21st March, 2025 with delay of 294 days. 3. In view of the above reasonable situation and circumstances the delay has caused in filing of the appeal and the appellant most respectfully prays Hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay in the interest of justice.” 4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that the email address mentioned in the web portal, i.e., [e-mail], which was belongs to the ex-CA of the assessee, the ex-CA of the assessee did not inform about the proceedings going on before the Ld. CIT(A). That the Ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity may kindly be given to the assessee to explain the case before the lower authority. The Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue has not objected to the prayer of the Ld. AR. 5. We have heard both the parties. We note that the assessee has unaware about the proceedings. In the absence of any contrary material of fact available on record, there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing the present appeal u/s. 253(5) of the Act, empowers the ITAT to admit an appeal after explain by the assessee. After considering the reason explained by the Ld. AR. In the interest of justice, we take a judicious view that we condoned the delay of 294 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. 7. Brief facts of the case that the appellant had filed return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 20/12/2016 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. The said return of income was duly processed at CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act. Further, the case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny under Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 183/RJT/2025 A. Y.2015-16 Urmilaji Steel Industries v. ITO CASS. Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued to the appellant on 19/09/2017. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act calling for submissions of details/ documents was issued to the appellant on 28/09/2017. In response to these notices, the representative of the appellant appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished submissions during assessment proceeding. The appellant is engaged in manufacturing and job work of all types of S.S. Materials, S.S. furniture and S.S. railing materials. During the assessment proceeding, on perusal of the submissions work income to the tune of Rs.85,234/-. The entire income was received in cash. Accordingly, necessary details were called for in response to which the appellant had furnished issued to different parties for whom the appellant had done the job work. However, all the notices returned unserved and the appellant could not produce any of the parties before the assessing officer. A final show cause notice was issued to the appellant to submit its response regarding the said transaction on or before 30/11/2017 however no response was submitted by the appellant before the Assessing officer. In absence of any explanation/Justification with respect to the source of cash receipt in lieu of the job work done as claimed by the appellant, the AO concluded that the cash received amounting to Rs.85.234/- in lieu of job work as claimed by the appellant was nothing but the assessee's own fund which was shown as job work income merely to justify his unaccounted cash available with him. Since, the appellant could not prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the cash received amounting to Rs.85.234/-, the AO proceeded to add the said amount to his total income for the assessment year under consideration. Further, on perusal of the submissions, the AO found that the appellant had entered into transaction with M/s Calibar Industries and received cash payment aggregating to Rs. 1,60,000/-. Necessary clarification Printed from counselvise.com Page | 5 ITA No. 183/RJT/2025 A. Y.2015-16 Urmilaji Steel Industries v. ITO was sought in this regard and notice u/s 133(6) was issued to the said party also to furnish information regarding the said transaction. The notice u/s 133(6) was returned unserved. The appellant was requested to produce the party before the assessing officer vide letter dated 25/10/2017 however there was total non-compliance on the part of the appellant in response to said notice. Thereafter, a final show-cause notice was issued to the appellant requiring him to furnish submissions on or before 30/11/2017 however, the show-cause notice was not complied with by the appellant and no submission was made by the appellant in this respect. In absence of any explanation/justification with respect to the source of cash receipt from M/s Calibar Industries as claimed by the appellant, the AO concluded that the cash received amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- from M/s Calibar Industries as claimed by the appellant was nothing but the assessee's own fund which was shown as cash received from M/s Calibar Industries merely to justify his unaccounted cash available with him. Since, the appellant could not prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the cash received amounting to Rs.1,60,000/-, the AO proceeded to add the said amount to his total income for the assessment year under consideration. Furthermore, on perusal of the submissions, the AO found that the appellant firm had introduced capital to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash in the firm claiming to have received the said amount from four partners of the firm. Accordingly, necessary details viz. partnership deed, ledger of partners, sources, confirmation etc. were called for from the appellant by the AO vide notice dated 25/10/2017 however, no response was submitted by the appellant in this respect. A final show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 23/11/2017 to furnish submissions, but the show cause notice was not complied with and no details/documents in respect of introduction of capital in cash were furnished by the appellant. Since all the queries Printed from counselvise.com Page | 6 ITA No. 183/RJT/2025 A. Y.2015-16 Urmilaji Steel Industries v. ITO raised vide several notices as mentioned above remained unexplained and unverified, the AO proceeded to add the said amount to the total income of the appellant for the assessment year under consideration. The total income of the appellant assessed at Rs. 4,45,234/-, u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 11/12/2017. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2017 of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the case with following observation: “3.8. Since the appellant has not presented any arguments or submissions or any details filed in support of its claim, the appeal is decided judiciously based on materials available on record. 3.9. I have perused the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 11/12/2017. The appellant has not furnished any submissions in support of the grounds of appeal during the appellate proceedings. Taking into account the entire conspectus of this case, I see no reason to disturb the categorical findings of the assessing officer regarding assessment of the total income of the appellant at Rs.4,45,230/-. 4. In the end result, the appeal is DISMISSED. Order passed under section 250 read with section 251 of the Act.” 5. That the assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 12.03.2024 before us. 6. During the course of argument, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the appellant could not comply with the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A), because of assessee’s ex-CA did not inform the assessee about proceedings. That the assessee unaware about the proceedings going on before the Ld. CIT(A). That the Ld. AR prayed for an opportunity to explain the case before the Lower Authority. 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR for the revenue, relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and on the prayer of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR stated that a levy cost should be imposed to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 7 ITA No. 183/RJT/2025 A. Y.2015-16 Urmilaji Steel Industries v. ITO 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We noted that the several notices have been issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearings of the case. Since, the appellant did not submitted the relevant documents before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as ex-parte order, after considering the material available on record without considering the fact that whether notices send on registered email address of the assessee or not. We further observed that the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the I. T. Act by the Ld. AO, while the assessee has not made the compliance with the notices for hearing issued by the Ld. AO. We note that the assessee has not gave due care and attention to the case and negligent in pursuing the case and the assessee has also a non- cooperative attitude in pursuing the case for A.Y. 2015-16. We direct the assessee to deposit a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Prime Minster Relief fund (Government of India), the receipt is to be submitted with the Registrar of this Tribunal. Keeping in view, in the interest of justice, that due opportunity given to the assessee to produced/submit the relevant documents before the Lower Authority. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh adjudication on merits, after giving due opportunity to be heard, we further direct the assessee to comply with the term of notice and submitted all relevant details/documents as required by the Ld. AO. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot (True Copy) Printed from counselvise.com Page | 8 ITA No. 183/RJT/2025 A. Y.2015-16 Urmilaji Steel Industries v. ITO Ǒदनांक/ Date: 14/08/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "