AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.
All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the different orders of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC arising out of the assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 to 2021-22.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessments as well as the appeal proceedings by the Ld. CIT(A) were exparte. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the appeals may be restore to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for giving an opportunity to the assessee and making assessment afresh in the interest of justice.
Heard rival contentions. Ongoing through the grounds of appeal in all these appeals we find that the assessee has raised following common grounds except for the figures :-
“1.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), dismissing the grounds of appeal and sustaining the addition of Rs. 5.05.922/- in place of returned income as returned by the assesse, is bad in law on account of several grounds and assessee/appellant denies its liability to be assessed for any income other than the income already returned by the assessee and any consequential demand thereon.
2.That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice u/s 153C issued by the Ld. AO is bad-in-law, barred by limitation and without jurisdiction and therefore the said notice along with the impugned assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice are liable to be quashed and Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding so.
3.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law as much as in fact while passing the impugned order u/s 153C r.w.s 144 without appreciating the provisions of section 153C and other allied provisions and the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law by sustaining such impugned assessment order.
4.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has passed the impugned order u/s 153C r.w.s 144 in undue haste and in violation of natural justice, without supplying the satisfaction note, seized incriminating material or other documents, despite multiple written requests made by the assessee.
5.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much as in fact while sustaining the impugned additions, made by the Ld. AO on the basis of third-party statements recorded u/s 132(4) without giving the assessee any opportunity of cross-examination, which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and renders the addition unsustainable.
6.That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as much as in fact while sustaining the impugned addition, made by the Ld. AO on the basis of estimations and presumptions.
7.That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is contrary to the provisions of section 153D of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding so.”
We have perused the orders of the AO and the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and observed that the orders were passed exparte by observing that there was no compliance by the assessee. Taking the totaling of facts into consideration and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that these appeals should go back to the file of the AO for framing fresh assessments in accordance with law after providing opportunity to the assessee. The AO shall supply the copies of the seized materials, the satisfaction note recorded, copies of statement relied on etc; to the assessee before framing the assessments as one of the contention of the assessee in the grounds of appeal was that the AO did not supply the seized material on which he placed reliance and also the satisfaction note recorded for initiation of the proceedings u/s.153C of the Act. Thus, we restore all these appeals to the file of the AO with a direction to complete the assessments afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the above observations.
In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.