AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1028
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, 2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [hereinafter referred to as 'Learned Assessing Officer' or Id. A01 and the appellate order dated June 13th, 2025 passed under section 250 of the Act by the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as 'Hon'. CIT(A)'] are erroneous, contrary to law, prejudicial to the interests of the Appellant and in violation of principles of natural justice; hence, both orders are bad in law and liable to be quashed. Ground No. 2. Addition on account of Duty Drawback : Reliance on CBEC portal data The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of 21,70,825/- on account of alleged unaccounted duty drawback, merely on the basis of CBEC/ICEGATE portal data, without appreciating that the Appellant had already accounted duty drawback on actual realization basis, and no additional income had accrued to the Appellant during the relevant year. Ground No. 3. Addition based on un-confronted CBEC data On the facts and in law, the Ld. AO erred in relying on unspecified "CBEC data" for making additions without furnishing the u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tent. Ground No. 8. Failure to consider judicial precedents Whether on the facts or the circumstances of the case, Hon. CIT(A) has erred in disregarding binding judicial precedents (including those relied upon by the Appellant) which hold that government subsidies/incentives are taxable only upon actual receipt or when an enforceable right to receive arises, irrespective of the system of accounting. Ground No. 9. Erroneous rejection of corroborative bank statements On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in treating the Appellant's complete bank statements as "additional evidence" despite the primary duty-drawback account having already been furnished before the Ld. AO. The remaining statements only corroborated that no other credits existed and did not introduce any fresh claim. Hence, rejection citing the documents as voluminous is bad-in-law. Ground No. 10. Rejection of Binding Precedent On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court of 'Matchwell Electricals (I) Ltd vs CIT [2003] 263 ITR 227 (Born)' solely on the ground that it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed. Ground No. 2. Validity of Penalty Order On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order passed under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") is bad in law and void ab initio, inasmuch as the Assessing Officer failed to specify the particular limb-whether the penalty was being levied for "underreporting" or "misreporting" of income. The absence of such a mandatory finding renders the penalty order unsustainable in law. Ground No. 3. Violation of Section 275 - Pendency of Quantum Appeal On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty order passed is contrary to section 275 of the Act, which mandates that penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the quantum appeal. The Appellant had specifically requested for such abeyance and had filed proof of appeal before the CIT(A), but the Ld. AO proceeded to levy penalty prematurely, rendering the order illegal. Ground No. 4. Violation of Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2021 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned penalty order is in gross violation of the Faceless Penalty Scheme, 2021, as it has been s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Absence of Mens Rea On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant has disclosed all primary facts, offered the duty drawback to tax on receipt basis, and had no intention to conceal or misreport income. The issue is one of difference in method of taxability and not concealment, thereby squarely falling outside the scope of penalty under section 270A. Ground No. 10. Principles of Natural Justice Violated On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the penalty order passed by Ld. AO along with order passed by Hon. CIT(A) have been passed without due consideration of the Appellant's submissions, without granting proper opportunity, and in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice. Ground No. 11. Miscellaneous Ground The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal. On the basis of above grounds and other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing with the consent of the Honourable Tribunal, it is prayed that the order passed under section 250 of Act by Hon. CIT(A) and Order passed under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said orders, the present appeals have been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the duty drawback would be credited into the bank account of the assessee by the Government and therefore without having any other materials to show that the Government has given so much of the duty drawback, the AO cannot make the addition on estimation. The Ld.AR also submitted that the duty drawback received during the F.Y. was properly accounted and reported in the return of income and the balance amounts were taken into account in the next F.Ys. whenever the duty drawback was credited into their bank account. The Ld.AR also invites our attention to section 2(24)(xviii) and 145B(3) and submitted that the duty drawback received during the F.Y. has to be treated as income in the F.Y. in which it was received. The Ld.AR further submitted that the AO had relied on the data in the website of Central Board of Excise and Customs without furnishing the data to the assessee and therefore the addition could not be sustained on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld.AR also field a paper book and furnished the copies o....