MILIND MADHUKAR MORE,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD 41(2)(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision on merits after giving proper opportunity.
What were the facts?
A search in the case of M/s. Saison Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. revealed that the company provided fake invoices. The assessee was found to be a beneficiary of these bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 59,67,890/-. The AO reopened the assessment and made an addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment and appellate orders were passed without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee and whether the AO properly verified the alleged bogus purchases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 148,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SMT.RENU JAUHRI
Date of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30.05.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2019-20.
The grounds of appeal are as follows:
“1. The Hon. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.O. are not justified in passing the appellate order and assessment order without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant.
2. The Ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment U/S. 148.
3. The Ld. AO failed to judiciously consider the submissions made by the appellant.
4. The Ld. A.O. is not justified in making the addition of Rs.59,67,890/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. The Ld. A.O. is not justified in passing the assessment order without providing the full copy of the statement recorded of third party.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil contractor and filed his return for A.Y. 2019-20 declaring total income of Rs. 40,58,350/-. Subsequently, a search was conducted in the case of M/s. Saison Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was found that the company was involved in providing fake/bogus invoices to various beneficiaries. On the basis of incriminating material found and seized, it was seen that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries.
Accordingly, ld. AO reopened his case and issued notice u/s. 148 on 20.04.2023. As the assessee did not file any reply/ return in response ot the notice, ld. AO issued a show-cause notice regarding bogus purchases from M/s. Saison Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 59,67,890/-. Thereafter, ld. AO passed an order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B dated 02.03.2025 assessing the total income at Rs. 1,00,26,240/- after adding the bogus purchases to the returned income.
3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 30.05.2025, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, ld. AR has submitted that ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) did not give sufficient opportunity to the assessee before passing the ex-parte orders.
He has, therefore, requested for restoring the matter to ld. AO for proper verification of the alleged bogus purchases. Ld. DR has not objected to the abovesaid proposition.
After hearing the rival submissions, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to ld. AO for fresh decision on merits after giving proper opportunity to the assessee, who is also directed to make requisite compliance.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on 31.10.2025
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
