ITO 19.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VIKESH BABULAL JAIN, MUMBAI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out repeatedly. From the case records, I notice that summons in this case were sent by the Registry through Speed Post as well as by e-mail. More than one month has passed since the summons were issued at the address provided by the assessee in Form No. 36; therefore, drawing the presumption available under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that the service of summons/notice has been duly effected.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the Court was ready with the arguments; therefore, I have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

At the very outset, I notice that the grounds raised by the Revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to the challenge against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in restricting the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, I have decided to adjudicate these grounds by way of this consolidated order.

I have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR, perused the material available on record, and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is noticed that the assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department alleging that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchase bills. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to satisfactorily respond to the statutory notices and, after appreciating the material available before him, made the impugned additions.

The assessee challenged the additions before the Ld. CIT(A). However, I find that while granting relief, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case and certain other judicial precedents without examining or verifying the documentary evidence relied upon by the assessee, without calling for any remand report from the Assessing Officer, and without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine such material.

Although a copy of the order of the Coordinate Bench was not placed on record, after going through the submissions made by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), I downloaded the said decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT and perused the order. Prima facie, I find that the said order does not appear to have considered the judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. DR before me, namely:

Further, no paper book or any other documentary evidence has been placed before me to demonstrate the genuineness of the purchases in question. In these circumstances, and in the interest of justice, I am of the considered opinion that the issue requires fresh examination at the level of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-adjudicate the matter after considering the order of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, the judicial precedents relied upon by the Ld. DR, as well as any other applicable judicial pronouncements. The Assessing Officer shall also afford adequate opportunity to the assessee to furnish the relevant documentary evidence in support of its claim and shall examine the same in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Before parting, it is clarified that the restoration of the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer shall not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the controversy. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue independently, strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the material that may be placed before him.

In the result, appeal filed by the Department stands allowed for statistical purposes.