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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 406/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on the merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an assessment order was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to examine the merits of the case. The department argued that the assessee did not comply with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution instead of deciding it on merits. The validity of re-assessment proceedings and the addition made under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (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:

1.

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.

(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

(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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →