The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Merigold Impex

Being aggrieved with the order dated 27/10/2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur in IT(SS)A No.01/RPR/2022 , Appellant-Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has

¶19

2

¶20

been admitted for its hearing on 09/04/2025, while framing the following substantial questions of law :-

¶21

1 ) “Whether the CIT (Appeals) is justified in deleting addition of Rs.4,89,85,000/- made by the AO for the relevant year by recording a finding perverse to the record, as no application for additional evidence was filed, which was condition precedent for admitting additional evidence?

¶22

2 ) Whether the ITAT is justified in upholding the order of CIT (Appeals) by recording a finding perverse to the record? ”

¶23

From perusal of the order impugned passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, it appears that upon the examination of the replies submitted by the assessee, it was observed that all the information relied upon by the CIT(A) with regard to flow of the source of funds was submitted before the AO and the same was noted by the CIT(A) in its order mentioning therein that all the relevant facts were already on the record of the AO. The relevant observation made to this effect at para 14 read as under :-

¶24

“14. Regarding the contentions raised by the revenue pertaining to violation of provisions of Rule 46A of Act by the Ld CIT(A) that the information and additional evidences were accepted by the CIT(A), the AO has not provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard to examine and rebut the claim of the assessee lodged before the CIT(A), it is apparent from the order of Ld. CIT that the AO vide notice dated 12/02/2021

¶25

3

¶26

was asked to confirm facts having a bearing on statutory validity of the appeal but the AO has failed to submit any report. It is also mentioned that in absence of any specific request from the Ld. AO it is presumed that the Ld. AO does not want to attend the hearings. On perusal of the copies of replies by the assessee it is apparent that all the information relied upon by the CIT(A) with respect to flow of the source of funds were submitted before the AO and the same fact has been noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in finding para 3.1.3 mentioning that all the key facts were already on the records of the AO. During the hearing of the present appeals also the department have not brought to our attention any of such specific information or evidence which have additionally been submitted before the Ld. CIT(A), but the same were not made available to the AO during the assessment proceedings, thereby we can hold the appellate proceedings liable to be quashed on account of violation of Rule 46A. Under such facts and circumstances, we cannot subscribe to the contention raised by the revenue in this context, therefore, such contentions of the revenue are rejected.”

¶27

1. It is to be seen further that during the pendency of this appeal, an affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Raipur, namely, Mr. G.V. Suryam, was placed on record, by way of covering memo, dated 08/09/2025 as per the order of this court passed on 01/09/2025, where he has admitted the aforesaid observation of the ITAT, as reveals from paras 4, 5 and 6 of his affidavit, which are relevant for the purpose read as under :-

¶28

4

¶29

“4. That in response to the above notices, the Authorized Representative, CA Praveen Jain, on behalf of the assessee, submitted a written reply dated 12.12.2019 and 16.12.2019 along with supporting documents.

¶30

5. That I hereby affirm that the above-mentioned submissions and documents were received and taken on record during the course of assessment proceedings, and they form part of the assessment records of M/s Merigold Impex for AY 2018-19.

¶31

6. That the contents of the affidavit dated 14.08.2025, filed by CA Praveen Jain before the Hon'ble High Court, insofar as they relate to the filing of letters and documents on 12.12.2019 and 16.12.2019 in response to the 142(1) Questionnaire, are verified to be true based on the official records.”

¶32

1. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, vis-a-vis, the affidavit submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I, Raipur, the substantial questions of law framed on 09/04/2025, thus, do not arise for determination.

¶33

1. The appeal, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶34

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶35

Chandrakant

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Merigold Impex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Merigold Impex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatraman Shrivas Vs Harishankar Shrivas

M/S. Sai Capital Pro. Supriya Bairagi Vs Aayush Agrawal

Sunil Malakar Vs Smt. Usha Dubey

Nagar Panchayat Kirodimal Nagar Vs Land Acquisition Officer / Sub Divisionl Officer (Revenue) Raigarh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Gurpreet Singh Bhatia

Rambachan Yadav Vs Vijay Gupta