DARSHAN PRADIP SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 17(1), MUMBAI

Date of Hearing 07.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 27.10.2025 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 29.05.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12.

1. (A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AD as follows. (1) Purchases from Jicon Enterprises Rs. 19,72,880/ (ii) Purchases from 3 parties Rs. 1,96,05,468/ (iii) Brokerage Rs. 8,02,441/- (iv) Disallowance of expenses on estimate basis Rs. 1,27,981/- 2. (A) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of noncompliance by the appellant and without considering the merits of the case. (B) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appeal proceedings were in progress before the CIT(A) 24. Mumbai and CIT(A) 46. Mumbai and that the appeal was attended and heard on different dates between 30/10/2012 and 05.06.2015, subsequently transferred to NFAC (C) The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant had filed two sets of paperbook containing from the purchase parties along with submissions and other relevant details before the erstwhile CIT(A) and that all the details in connection with the appeal proceedings were on record before the present CIT(A) at the time of deciding the appeal. (D) The appellant humbly submits that the matter be restored back for fresh adjudication.

3. (A) The appellant had duly submitted all relevant details before CIT(A), and was therefore under the bonafide belief that all compliance requirements had been met, and that the matter being over a decade old, the appellant did not check the poratal leading to an inadvertent lapse. (B) The appellant humbly prays that one opportunity be given to prove the case in the interest of justice.

3. Brief fact of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 70,96,310/- for A.Y. 2009-10 on 30.09.2009. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel in the name of M/s. Raj Sales, the proprietary concern. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessee was completed vide order dated 22.12.2011 u/s. 143(3) of the Act and assessed income of Rs. 2,96,05,080/- following additions were made to the returned income: i. On account of bogus transaction with Gicon Enterprises- 19,72,880/- ii. Disallowances out of brokerage, purchases other expenses- 2,25,08,770/-

Aggrieved with the order of ld. AO the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings several notices were issued to the assessee but no compliance was made except for once when an application for adjournment was filed. As no compliance was made by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) filed vide order dated 29.05.2025 dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte. Aggrieved, with the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is considered the appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, ld. AR has submitted that in this case the appeal was filed in 2012 and till 2017 physical hearings were attended by the assessee. Subsequently, the appeal was transferred through faceless regime in 2020. As non of the online notices were received by the assessee, no compliances would be made. Under these circumstances the ld. AR was requested for restoring the appeal to ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. DR also controverted the above proposition.

4. After hearing the rival submission and in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate to remand the case back to ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before ld. CIT(A).

Order Pronounced in Open Court on 27.10.2025