Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
O R D E R Per Bench :
These appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), relevant to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. It is observed that the appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 60 days and the ld. AR prayed for condoning the said delay. On perusal of the Affidavit filed by the assessee we hereby condone the delay in filing the appeal as there was sufficient cause for the said delay.
The assessee has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to decide on the validity of the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act sans any incriminating material found during search. The assessee has also challenged the ground that the assessee was not provided with sufficient opportunity of 2 384 & 385/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Jaisal Electronics and Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT hearing before the ld. CIT(A) who had passed an ex parte order, confirming the addition made by the A.O. on peak credit of money received as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. As the facts of these appeals are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order
The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the petroleum and share trading business and pursuant to a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act carried out in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain dated 01.10.2013 in which Ms. Neeta Maloo who was a shareholder in the assessee company was also searched. The assessee filed its return of income u/s. 153C of the Act dated 20.03.2016, declaring total income as Nil.
The assessment order dated 21.03.2016 was passed u/s. 153C of the Act r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act where the A.O. determined the total income of the assessee company at Rs.7,02,00,000/- by making an addition on unsecured loan as accommodation entry on peak credit basis as the assessee was found to be one of the beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain.
The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the said addition by an ex parte order on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim by way of documentary evidence to contradict the findings of the Assessing Officer.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the ex parte order passed by the ld. CIT(A).
The ld. AR for the assessee contended that the assessee may be extended with one last opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A) and further contended that the 3 384 & 385/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Jaisal Electronics and Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT assessee has got a good case on merits. The ld. AR prayed that all these issues be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A).
The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue had nothing to controvert the same except of the submission that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity before the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the assessee has not complied with the proceedings before the lower authorities. Upon considering the submission made by the assessee, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given a last opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A) abiding by the principles of natural justice. The assessee is directed to furnish all the supporting evidences before the ld. CIT(A) without any undue delay.
The ld. CIT(A) shall dispose of the appeal on merits based on the submission proposed to be made by the assessee. Hence, this matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The facts of the case in these two appeals are identical with that of the facts in hence, it applies mutatis mutandis to these appeals also.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.04.2023