" 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी पाथŊ सारथी चौधरी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अवधेश क ुमार िमŵ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 119/RPR/2026 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Devsar Overseas, House No.25, Indu Palace, Ward No.36, Near Bal Mohan Mandir, Ganjpara Durg, C.G.-491001 Vs ITO, Ward 2(1), Bhilai, Income Tax Office, Bhilai, 18/32 Bunglow, Civic Centre, Bhilai, C.G.-490006 PAN: AAQFD6762N (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Dubey, Adv. राजˢ की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Raghunath, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 19/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 20/03/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM: This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2022-23 filed by the assessee is directed against order dated 05.12.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The grounds of appeal, being argumentative, challenge the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the merit. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.119/RPR/2026 Devsar Overseas, Durg vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Bhilai 2 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed its Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) on 07.11.2022 declaring income of Rs.1,84,000/-. The case was picked up for scrutiny and consequentially, the assessment was completed at income of Rs.3,09,28,055/- treating entire purchases as unexplained. The assessee had made purchases of Rs.3,07,49,055/- from various parties. The Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) sent notices under section 133(6) of the Act to some of the suppliers but none of them ensured compliance thereof. The Ld. AO, due to non- response from any party to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act, taxed the entire purchases. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-prosecution observing as under: “5.2 During the appeal proceedings, the appellant did not furnish any written submission along with documents in response to the hearing notices issued. The appellant furnished the details of purchases, invoice & ledger, bank account statement, GSTR-2A details along with written submission dated 19.03.2024 along with Form-35. On perusal of the details/ documents, it was noticed that the same details were already furnished before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and the same were examined by the AO while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. It may be construed that the appellant having no other documents/evidences in support of its claim, which were furnished other than before the AO. The AO clearly stated in the impugned order that in order to verify the genuineness of purchases of the appellant i.e., reason for selection of case for scrutiny, he issued notice u/s. 133(6) to five parties from the list of purchasers submitted by the appellant. The AO did not receive any reply from the parties and hence the genuineness of purchases made by the appellant could not be established. Therefore, the AO held that the entire amount of purchase amounting to Rs.3,07,44,055/- is considered as bogus purchases and added to the total income of the appellant During the appeal proceedings, the appellant did not furnish any details/documentary evidences w.r.t. addition made by the AO in the impugned Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.119/RPR/2026 Devsar Overseas, Durg vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Bhilai 3 order in support of its claim after giving five opportunities being heard. The appellant did not mention any additional evidences in the Form-35. The details/documents submitted by the appellant were already examined by the AO during the assessment proceedings and taken into consideration while completing the assessment. The onus is on the appellant to substantiate its claim by furnishing requisite documentary evidences w.r.t. genuineness of the purchases made to the tune of Rs.3,07,44,055/- from various parties. The appellant miserably failed to produce any documentary evidences controverting the findings of the AO. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant failed to substantiate its claim by filing requisite documentary evidences w.r.t. making addition in the impugned order. Therefore, the action of the AO is upheld. Accordingly, the ground nos.1,2,3,4 & 5 raised on this issue are dismissed.” 4. Before us, Shri Siddharth Dubey, Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte due to non- prosecution. He further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merit by giving detailed justification while agreeing with the Ld. AO’s finding. Non- compliance on the part of the assessee was the sole reason for dismissal of the appeal, the Ld. Counsel submitted. He prayed for remanding the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 5. Shri Raghunath, Ld. CIT-DR drawing our attention to various paras of the impugned appellate order, submitted that reasonable opportunities of being heard had been provided to the appellant assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appellant assessee did not ensure any compliance. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the appeal. On our specific query, he, reluctantly admitted for remanding the case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.119/RPR/2026 Devsar Overseas, Durg vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Bhilai 4 6. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.). 7. We have taken note of the fact that the assessee has made non-compliance consistently before the Ld. CIT(A). We find force in the submission of the Ld. Counsel that the non-compliance on the part of the assessee is the sole reason for dismissal of the appeal. We have taken note of the fact that the assessee has not made any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the non-compliance on the part of the assessee is the sole reason for dismissal of appeal. Even in such facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dispose the appeal ex-parte due to non- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.119/RPR/2026 Devsar Overseas, Durg vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Bhilai 5 prosecution as he has no option except to decide the case on merit also with detailed reasoning, which has not been done in this case. Considering the facts of the case, in the interest of justice, we, without offering any comment on merit of the case and in view of the above observation, find the impugned order deem fit to set aside and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to say that the appellant assessee has to cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings in this case. 8. In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/03/2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 20/03/2026 HKS, PS आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //True copy// (Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "