RELIABLE SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CIRCLE 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Reliable Spaces Private Limited, B-5 & B-7, Wadala ShriRam Industrial Estate, Sewri Wadala Estate, G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Wadala (West) - 400031 [PAN: AACCR0843F] …………… Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Respondent ……………. New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400020 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Rajendra Chandekar Date : 16.11.2023 Conclusion of hearing : 29.11.2023 Pronouncement of order

O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: By way of the present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 27/01/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2011-12, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 02/11/2018, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 2.

(Assessment Year: 2011-12) 1) “The Learned CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi has erred in not giving proper opportunity to your appellant while dismissing the appeal of the appellant by the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 & thus violated the rules of nature law & justice. 2) The Learned CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi has erred in holding that the reopening of the Relevant Assessment Year by the Ld. Assessing Officer was valid in law considering the fact that the AY 2011-12 ended on 31st March 2012 and notice for Reopening Assessment u/s 148 of the Act, bearing Ref no. ITBA/AST/S/148/2017-18/1009356896(1) was 31-03-2018 and Ld. AO had no reason to believe that income of the appellant had escaped assessment. Thus the reopening is bad in law and should be set aside. 3) The Learned CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the actions of the Ld. Assessing Officer of reducing the amount of Capital Work in progress to the tune of Rs. 49,72,906/- merely on the basis of information received from DGIT(Inv) and without conducting any independent inquiry or gathering any material in support thereof, without providing a copy if the statement recorded of Richa Steel recorded by DGIT(Inv), conducting any cross examination. Therefore, the adverse conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO are in bad in law and the actions of the Ld. AO need to be set aside. 4) Without prejudice, your appellant submits that as per the information with the Ld. AO from DGIT(inv), he had reason to suspect that income of Rs. 27,80,672/- only (being alleged bogus purchases effected from M/s. Richa Steel) had escaped assessment for the AY 2011-12 but while framing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, the Ld. AO has made addition to the tune of Rs. 49,72,906/-.”

The relevant facts in brief that the Appellant, a private limited 3. company, filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–12 on 26/09/2011 declaring total income of INR 5,92,48,652/-. Reassessment proceedings were initiated against the Appellant which culminated into order, dated 02/11/2018, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act.

(Assessment Year: 2011-12) In appeal preferred by the Appellant before the CIT(A) against the 4. Assessment Order, dated 02/11/2018, the Appellant was proceeded ex-parte. The CIT(A), vide order, dated 27/01/2013, condone the delay in filing the appeal but declined to grant any further relief by upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act and confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer on merits based upon the material on record.

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A), the 5. Appellant has preferred the present appeal before us.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on 6. behalf of the Appellant. However, after perusing the Grounds of Appeal, we proceed to examine the issue raised in the present appeal. We have heard the Learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record including the orders passed by the authorities below. We note that the Appellant was proceeded ex- parte by the CIT(A) since the Appellant did not respond to the notices for hearing of appeal issued after the appeal was transferred to NFAC. Further, while dismissing ground raised by the Appellant challenging the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, the CIT(A) has, in paragraph 9 of the order impugned, recorded that no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on the Appellant, whereas in paragraph 1 of the Assessment Order, dated 02/11/2018, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer had noted that the case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed on 12/12/2013. In view of the aforesaid and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate and in the interests of justice to set aside the ex-parte order, dated (Assessment Year: 2011-12) 27/01/2023, passed by the CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate grounds raised in appeal before the CIT(A) afresh after verifying the facts and after granting the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In view of the aforesaid Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed while rest of the grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous.

In result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 7.