ALLEY INFRAVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE – 6(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present their case effectively.
What were the facts?
The assessee remained ex parte before both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), leading to an ex parte assessment order and dismissal of the appeal. The assessee raised grounds concerning violation of natural justice and reliance on unsubstantiated evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment and appeal dismissal were valid without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and if additions were made solely on WhatsApp chats and third-party statements without corroboration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN
PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) - 54, Mumbai vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081666377(1) dated 11- Oct-2025 for the Assessment Year 2023-24. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in sustaining the order of assessment passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard in violation of the principles of natural justice.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the additions made by Ld. Assessing Officer solely on the basis of WhatsApp chats and third-party statements without bringing on record any cogent corroborative material thus making the said additions unsustainable in law.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 1,57,000/- on account of disallowance of professional fees made by the Ld. Assessing Officer despite the fact that the appellant company not a dummy entity but is an ACTIVE COMPLIANT as can be perused from the MCA Master data available on ROC portal.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the additions of Rs 1,57,000/- when the addition has been made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by treating the appellant company as dummy entity and placing reliance on the statements of Shri Prakash Manohar Dhavale, Director of the appellant company and Shri Gopal Jagdish Damle, Assistant Accountant in M/s A. N. Enterprises Infrastructure Services P Limited recorded during the course survey action conducted u/s 133A of the Act, despite the fact that both the statements lacks evidentiary value and do not provide any incriminating or adverse evidence.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs 1,57,000/- without rejecting the books of accounts and without invoking section 145 of the Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify, delete, vary and/or withdraw any or all of the grounds of appeal as may be necessary.
From the records, I noticed that the assessee remained ex parte before both the Assessing Officer (AO) as well as the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)]. Consequently, on the basis of the material available on record, the AO completed the assessment, and the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.
Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issues raised by the assessee, and considering the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), I am of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be afforded to the assessee to present his case before the AO.
Accordingly, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to set aside the orders passed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing the assessee with adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard. This restoration shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- by the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt evidencing such deposit shall be placed on record before the AO within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The assessee is directed to extend full cooperation during the remand proceedings and shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds.
Before parting, it is made clear that the decision to restore the matter to the file of the AO shall not be construed as expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the controversy involved. The AO shall adjudicate the issues independently, uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order, and strictly in accordance with law.
Needless to mention, the AO shall provide the assessee with adequate and effective opportunity of being heard before passing the fresh order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2026.
Sd/- SANDEEP GOSAIN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 31.07.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: ALLEY INFRAVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, 708, GATEWAY PLAZA CHS, A S MARG, 1 HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400076, MAHARASHTRA
CENTRAL CIRCLE – 6(4), KAUTILYA BHAWAN, BANDRA KURLA 2 COMPLEX, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA
3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Radheshyam Bhoi vs. The Comnr. Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Dharmajit Mishra vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Tapan Kumar Sahu vs. The Comnr. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Sanjeet Kumar Bagh vs. The Comn. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Rakesh Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
