Tikamchand Sahu Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur)
Non-Speaking NFAC Order Set Aside: Raipur ITAT Remands Section 68 Addition & Ad-Hoc Expense Disallowance
In this appeal involving additions u/s 68 & ad-hoc disallowances, the Raipur ITAT noted that the Assessee repeatedly sought adjournments but remained absent despite multiple opportunities. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod on avoiding routine adjournments, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte & heard the Sr. DR.
Assessee had argued that jurisdiction lay with Odisha, but Departmental records showed that during the assessment year, the Assessee was residing & assessed in Chhattisgarh, & the return for AY 2022-23 was filed under ITO Mahasamund jurisdiction. ITAT held that jurisdiction of Raipur Bench was proper.
On merits, the NFAC had sustained addition of ₹14,30,000 u/s 68 by simply reproducing general principles, without examining confirmations, ITRs or specific facts. ITAT held that CIT(A) failed to apply independent mind as required u/s 250(6), gave a non-speaking order & wrongly relied on P. Mohanakala without connecting it to case facts. As such, the issue was remanded for fresh adjudication.
For ad-hoc disallowance of expenses (labour, transport, salary, rent, fooding—totalling ₹36.28 lakh, ITAT observed that CIT(A) reduced disallowance from 20% to 15% but again without any analysis of books, vouchers or business realities of a country-liquor shop. ITAT held that such guess-work cannot sustain taxation & set aside the disallowance.
