OMSHANTI UNIVERSAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2336/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 October 2023AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order confirming an addition of ₹16,00,00,000/- to its total income, which was an undisclosed income admitted by an individual during a survey. The assessee also challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of undisclosed income was justified and whether penalty proceedings were rightly initiated, considering the assessee's non-appearance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLEDr. B.A. Road, Byculla (E)

For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt
Pronounced: 06.10.2023

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 24.05.2023 for the A.Y.2013-14.

(A.Y. 2013-14) Omshanti Universal Private Limited 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹.16,00,00,0000/- to the total income of the Appellant, being undisclosed income admitted by Mr. Paras Porwal at the time of survey for the year under consideration. The Appellant prays that the addition of ₹.16,000,00,000/- to the total income of the appellant may please be deleted in view of the proviso under section 68 of the Act.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the IT Act.”

3.

At the outset, we observe that inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal with the assistance of Ld.DR and the material available on record.

4.

Ld.DR brought to our notice relevant facts of the case and he relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and accepted that assessee has not utilized the opportunity provided by Ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR also acknowledged it is an exparte order.

5.

Considered the submissions of Ld. DR and material placed on record. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not appear nor complied to the notices issued. Considering the totality of facts and keeping in view the additions / disallowance made by the Page No. 2

(A.Y. 2013-14) Omshanti Universal Private Limited Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. Needless to say that the Ld.CIT(A) shall give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06th October, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →