IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.160/AGR/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2019-20)

Income Tax Officer, Saurabh Jain, Guna.

1, Near Sanjeevani Vs.

Hospital Garha Colony, Guna, Madhaya Pradesh-473001 PAN-BGJPJ7915F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Subhash Jain, CA Department by Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIR-DR Date of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

O R D E R

[

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [Ld. CIT(A) in short] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in setting aside assessment without dealt to filed ground of appeal hence whole order is bad in law.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating that the reassessment order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 is void ab initio because same was framed on duplicate PAN of the appellant while appellant assessed on original PAN. Thus Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deciding to such matter required under the law.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not dealt the ground regarding illegal addition of 24,83,15,217/- under Section 69A on account of cash deposits in the bank accounts which were duly recorded in the books of accounts and supported by an audit report, making the invocation of Section 69A unwarranted.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred not dealt to the ground regarding ignoring to the duplicate PAN allotted by the department instead of second copy of original (PAN AEDPJ2677P) because copy of Original PAN was not available with appellant.

Thus set aside the matter without directing for such issue is against of law.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not deciding to the ground for deposit Rs. 2,32,68,300/- in bank account no. 10180002441668 out of cash sale of god poshak/cloth of his branch as well as cash deposit into another Bank A/c no. 10180003356720 in HO books duly account but treated as unrecorded cash.

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred not dealt to the ground of ignoring to the submissions and documents filed before the Assessing Officer.

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not dealt to wrongly levied to the interest under Sections 234A, 234B & 234C and the wrongful initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAC(1), which were imposed without any factual or legal basis.

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not dealt for quashing the reassessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 as well as not dealt to addition of 4,83,15,217/- made under Section 69A, along with the consequential interest and penalty levied.

Hence be decided appeal after directing to whole proceedings against of law.

9. That the appropriate order for granting justice and relief be passed.

10. Your appellant reserves its right to add to amend to alter or to modify any of above grounds and to pursue any other or further grounds as may be required.

3. The main contention of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of the assessee has exercised the power conferred in terms of proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act and set aside the assessment order to the file of AO with certain directions for making fresh assessment. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the legal issue