Neelkanth Mahadev Greet Udyog vs ITO, Charkhi Dadri

PER SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, dated 10.12.2025, arising out of assessment order passed under section u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B), dated 17.03.2021, of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of manufacturing & trading of stone, crusher, gitti and allied job. The ld. Assessing Officer noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted copy of bank statement and a statement claimed to be reconciliation and copy of partnership deed. The ld. Assessing Officer further noted that the assessee has deposited cash/multiple cash on various dates aggregating to Rs.3,22,44,850/-. The ld. Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the cash deposit. However, the assessee failed to submit anything before the Assessing Officer, the ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.52,59,135/-. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of ld. First Appellate Authority deserves to be set-aside as the same has been passed without giving adequate opportunity of being heard. It was submitted that the assessee was given opportunity to file details in February, 2023 but the order was passed without any intervening show-cause or notice in December, 2025. It was accordingly requested that the matter may be considered for remission to ld. Assessing Officer for readjudication.

The ld. DR placed reliance upon the orders of the lower authorities.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

We have noted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) is indeed based upon giving inadequate opportunity to the assessee. In para-4 of his order, he records submissions details by the assessee, whereas, in para-6, he records non-submission of documents in support of grounds of appeal. Thus, contradictory finding have been recorded. We have also noted that the Ld. AO has also drawn his conclusions in view of reported deficient compliance by the assessee. We are however conscious of the fact that no appellant benefits by non-prosecution of its case. Be that as it may be, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the lower authorities and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. AO for assessment de novo in accordance with law and by way of passing a speaking order. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assessee and it shall be bounden upon the assessee to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO Any non-compliance on the part of the assessee can be adversely viewed. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possesses the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.