MRS.MEENA BHUSHAN PUNAMIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(2)(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 406/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mrs. Meena Bhushan Punamiya 1304, Chamunda Jewels, Yashwant Nagar, Teen Dongri, Goregaon, Mumbai - 400104 [PAN: AJAPP7969C] …………… Appellant Vs ITO-31(2)(3), Mumbai, Room No. 613, 6th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Respondent ……………. Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Bhavya Sundesha For the Respondent/Department : Shri Sridhar Govind Menon Date : 17.05.2023 Conclusion of hearing : 24.05.2023 Pronouncement of order

O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: The present appeal is directed against the order, dated 13/12/2022, 1. 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 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 04/12/2019, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

The Appellant has challenged the order passed by the CIT(A), 2.

ITA No.406/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) wherein the CIT(A) has upheld the validity of re-assessment proceedings and confirmed the addition of INR 2,35,841/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act holding the sale proceeding arising on transfer of alleged penny-stock script of M/s Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd. was an accommodation entry.

The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant appearing before 3. us submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the Assessment Order, dated 04/12/2009 passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act without examining the merits of the matter.

The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Appellant 4. was did not comply with the notices issued during the appellate proceedings and therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal.

On perusal of the record, we find that despite issuance of notice, no 5. submissions were filed by the Appellant and therefore, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal holding that the Appellant was not interested in pursuing the appeal. However, we find merit in the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant that the CIT(A) was under obligation to dispose of the appeal on merits rather than the dismissing the same on account of non-prosecution. Accordingly, we set aside the order, dated 13/12/2022, passed by the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal on merits. The Appellant has directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings and seek unnecessary adjournment. Further, the Appellant is also directed to file all the relevant documents/details on which the Appellant wishes to place reliance before the CIT(A). In terms of the 2

ITA No.406/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) above, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes whereas all the other grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous.

In result, the present appeal preferred by the Appellant is allowed for 6. statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 24.05.2023.

Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Rahul Chaudhary) Accountant Member Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 24.05.2023 Alindra, PS

ITA No.406/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त/ The CIT 4. प्रध न आयकर आय क्त / Pr.CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file.

आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai