VIJAY GIRJASHANKAR TRIVEDI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), KALYAN

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order and dismissing the appeal without granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition made by Ld. A.O. of Rs.23,82,756/- being 100% of alleged to be bogus. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition upto 20% made by Ld. A.O. of Rs.41 500/- as indirect expenses claimed by appellant.

Fact in brief is that the return of income declaring total income of Rs.123,720/- was filed on 29.09.2009. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing of notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2016 on the basis of information received from Sale Tax Department that assessee has obtained accommodation entries of purchases made from the following parties: Hawala Tin Hawala Name F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 27020229342V Universal 2008-09 8,05,804/- Enterprise 27110574467V Apex Steel 2008-09 3,90,936/- 27230613104V Arihant Traders 2008-09 4,00,624/- 27940631968v Varah Laxmi Sales 2008-09 7,85,392/- Agency Total 23,82,756/-

During the course of assessment the assessing officer stated that assesse has failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases made from the aforesaid parties, therefore, 100% of such purchases was disallowed and added to the total income of the assesse.

The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) stated that inspite of issuing a number of notices the assessee had not made any compliance, therefore, in the ex-parte order passed u/s 250 of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed, by restricting the disallowance to the extent of 20% of such bogus transactions. 5. Heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. The assessee pleaded as per ground no. 1 of appeal filed that sufficient opportunity of hearing was not granted by the ld. CIT(A). We find that in the order u/s 250 of the Act passed by the ld. CIT(A), the detail of issuing any service of notices of hearing to assessee were not provided. Therefore, in the interest of justice to decide the issue in appeal on P a g e | Vijay Girjashankar Trivedi Vs. ITO Ward 3(4) merits we consider it appropriate to restore this case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding denovo after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to make the compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure. Therefore, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.10.2023