TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orthiness of persons and the genuineness of the transactions has not been proved by the assessee. Copy of the Bank Statement, Confirmation of accounts, and I. Tax Return copy was furnished before the AO during the assessment proceedings, which were not considered by the AO. 2. For that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO was not justified and erred in making addition u/s.68 without considering and appreciating the evidences and explanation furnished before the AO. 3. For that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowances of expenditure as made by the AO to the amount of Rs. 3,62,890/- (10% of the Expenses of Rs. 36,28,907/-) is arbitrary, unlawful, unjust and excessive. The disallowance so made by the AO for possible leakage of revenue is unjust, arbitrary, and bad-in-law and baseless. 4. For that under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Order u/s.250 of the I.T. Act. as made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is arbitrary, unreasonable. unlawful, uncalled for and unjustified as the CIT(A) without 4 applying his mind and without going through the fact and without going through the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delivering system, therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed specifically that the adjournments should not be granted in a routine manner and mechanically and such grant of adjournment by the Courts should not be a cause of delay in dispensing justice. In the present matter, sufficient opportunities of hearing have already been provided to the assessee, however, the assessee failed to comply with such hearing notices. Further, all the communications have been made to the registered address, which has been provided by the assessee. In these facts and circumstances any further delay in disposing this matter would ultimately result in hindrance of justice and therefore, as per the aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), I proceed to hear this matter after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on careful consideration of all the documents on record. 3. The assessee had filed a written statement, wherein, he contends that the PAN of the assessee comes under the Orisha jurisdiction of ACIT Circle Rourkela and, therefore, the appropriate forum is not the ITAT Raipur Bench. The said submissions are extracted as follows: Hon'ble Sir, The hu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asamund, since the assessee was himself residing at Mahasamund. The relevant extract of the personal information as found in Form-35 is extracted as follows: 6. That since, during the relevant assessment year, the assessee was residing in the State of Chhattisgarh and his PAN was with ITO- Mahasamund, the situs of the AO established and he had rightly framed the assessment, therefore, for this relevant assessment year the jurisdiction as correctly placed before the ITAT, Raipur (C.G.) 7. Coming to the merits of the matter, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC had upheld the addition of Rs. 14,30,000/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act stating that the creditworthiness of person and genuineness of the transaction has not been proved. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held as follows: "7.2.3............................................In the instant case, the appellant has only submitted the bank account of both the creditors and the ITR with respect to Shri Jai Hanuman Store. This evidence alone is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 68, as detailed below: 1. Identity of the Creditor Merely providing a bank statement does not establish the identity of the lend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld the findings of the AO without specific enquiry and examination regarding the facts of this case. He has simply accepted the findings of the AO without bringing his own reasoning for upholding the said addition. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC needs to provide independent application of mind and come out with a speaking order in terms of section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. The order, therefore, is not in terms with the principles of substantive justice, which needs to be applied by any quasi judicial body. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC), but how that case law is relevant to the present facts of the case of the assessee has not been spelt out through reasoning of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, I set-aside this issue and remand the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to pass order as per law complying with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, grounds No. 1 and 2 stands allowed for statistical purposes. 10. Regarding ground No. 3 and 5, the assessee contends there has been an ad-hoc addition by the AO at Rs. 7,25,781/- b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....======== Document 1 à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤ सरकार वितà¥à¤¤ मंतà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ : राजसà¥à¤µ विà¤à¤¾à¤— कारà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤²à¤¯ आयकर अधिकारी तà¥à¤°à¤¿à¤®à¥‚रà¥à¤¤à¤¿ कॉलोनी के पास, रायपà¥à¤° रोड, Government of India Ministry of Finance: Department of Revenue Office of the Income Tax Officer, Mahasamund Near Trimurti Colony, Raipur Road, Mahasamund (C.G.) - 493445 ( .. ) . 493445 Dated: 14/11/2025 Email ID : [email protected] Dated: 14/11/2025 Email ID : [email protected] F.No.ITO/MSMD/Misc./ITAT/2025-26/ Dated: 14/11/2025 To The Joint Commissioner of Income tax (ITAT) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench, Raipur Madadm, Subject: Submission of Report in the case of Tikamchand Sahu ITA - 494/RPR/2025 A.Y. 2022-23- Regarding Ref: Your office letter in F.No. JCIT-ITAT/RPR/R....