FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING & RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6940/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 September 2025AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the issue had not been examined on merits because the assessee failed to make any compliance before the Assessing Officer (AO). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matter to the jurisdictional AO for making a fresh assessment after considering the assessee's submissions. The assessee was also directed to make requisite compliance before the AO. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order, and the assessee was challenging this order. The Tribunal's decision to restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, with directions for compliance, implies that the grounds raised by the assessee regarding the merits of the addition and procedural lapses by the CIT(A) were not decided on their substance but were addressed by remanding the case. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessment has not been examined on merits due to non-compliance by the assessee, and the appellate authority has set aside the order, the appellate tribunal can restore the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment to ensure justice, provided the assessee cooperates.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Femina Concept Marketing & Retail Trading (Textiles) Co Private Limited, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 29.10.2024 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee had not filed its return of income. Based on AIR information indicating the purchase of an immovable property for Rs. 6,03,93,900/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 147. As the assessee made no compliance to the notices issued, the AO completed the assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B, treating the Rs. 6,03,93,900/- as unexplained investment under Section 69. The total income was assessed at Rs. 6,03,93,900/-. The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order and directed a fresh assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 6,03,93,900/- made under Section 69 as unexplained investment, considering the AO's assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the actual purchase consideration as per Form 26AS was Rs. 50,00,000/- paid through banking channels, and in ignoring the non-applicability of Section 56(2)(x) to the impugned assessment year. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing the appellate order without issuing a notice of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the addition of Rs. 6,03,93,900/- based solely on AIR information without providing the same to the assessee or demonstrating its relevance. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order to the AO, when the CIT(A) had the power under Section 250(4) or Rule 46A to call for information or remand the matter. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the addition was made solely on AIR information, which was not provided to them, and the AO did not independently verify it. They also contended that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing a hearing and that the CIT(A) wrongly set aside the assessment order instead of exercising powers under Section 250(4) or Rule 46A. The assessee also pointed out that the actual purchase consideration was Rs. 50,00,000/- as per Form 26AS and that Section 56(2)(x) was not applicable. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 56(2)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Gantra
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 11.08.2025Pronounced: 29.09.2025

Appellant by : Shri Ravi Gantra Respondent by : Shri Vivek Perampurna(Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 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 29.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15

2.

The grounds of appeal are as follows:

A.Y. 2014-15 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting addition of Rs 6,03,93,900/- u/s 69 as unexplained Investment made in the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact brought on record by the Assessing Officer that as per form 26AS, the actual purchase consideration was only Rs. 50,00,000/- paid through banking channels and also ignoring the non-applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(x) enacted w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19 to impugned Assessment Year.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the Appellate Order and framing the Grounds of Decision without issuing any notice of hearing to the appellant thereby not providing an opportunity of being heard resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice and forcing appellant to protracted litigation before multiple authorities.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting addition of Rs 6,03,93,900/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property only on the basis of information available on Individual Transaction System/AIR information in ITBA AIMS system and Assessing Officer neither provided the said information or source thereof to appellant nor demonstrated as to how the said information indicted the appellant nor making any independent enquiries in this regard.

5.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in setting aside the assessment order to the office of the Ld. Assessing Officer by stating that no machinery was available wherein, an option to call for information from the appellant and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer was very well within the powers of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250(4) of the Act or under Rule 46A of the Rules. Therefore, order is passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under misconception of judicial obligation and powers and therefore deserves to be quashed and addition made by Assessing Officer be deleted.

6.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in setting aside the assessment order to the office of the Ld. Assessing Officer, which was never prayed in the appeal filed in Form 35 before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and reasonable cause existed for non-compliance before the Assessing Officer as per detailed statement of facts before him.

7.

The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. The appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) and/or any other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. Since AIR information revealed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs. 6,03,93,900/- during the year under consideration, proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated by the AO.

Since no compliance was made to any of the notices issued by ld. AO, the assessment was completed after treating the investment of Rs. 6,03,93,900/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Assessment order was accordingly passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B on 24.03.2022 at a total income of Rs. 6,03,93,900/-.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A).

Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment order vide his order dated 29.10.2024 with a direction to make a fresh assessment.

Assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is clear that the issue has not been examined on merits as the assessee failed to make any compliance before the ld. AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to ld. Jurisdictional AO for making a fresh assessment after considering the assessee’s submissions. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the ld. AO.

Order Pronounced in Open Court on 29.09.2025

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →