LALJI MURJI BHANUSHALI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3668/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This decision was made without prejudice to the merits of the dispute.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex parte. The assessee claims their previous representative was incompetent and they, being less educated, were unaware of the need to resubmit documents. The additions were based on third-party information from the CGST department.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A) due to prior representation issues and lack of awareness. Whether additions based on third-party information and invoking specific sections were arbitrary.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Mishra
For Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Hearing: 24.06.2026Pronounced: 07.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2018-19. The following grounds raised by assessee are reproduced below:-

2 ITA No.3668/Mum/2026 (Lalji Murji Bhanushali) i. Misguided by previous AR On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant was misguided and poorly represented by his then Authorized Representative while filing the Appeal and pursuing the same before first Appellate. Due to such incompetency, the Appel was dismissed by the Hon’ble Commissioner Appeal and case was not assessed and heard properly.

ii. Natural justice - An opportunity required on merits to represent the case fairly On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant being small business man, Less educated not Tech Savvy and running a simple Kirana store sought a fair and just opportunity to represent its case before the authorities along with necessary documents like suppliers invoices and records which was not ₹26,55,875/- available with the assesses during the assessment and first appellate proceedings because of the non-awareness about necessity of resubmission before the first Appellate Authority.

iii. Investigation is based on the information of third party (CGST Deptt) inquiry and by arbitrarily invoking Section 69 A and Adding Rs 33,41,390/-as Bogus Purchases from Supplier was based on surmises and inference not on fact and records of appellant.

The appellant is also registered as regular GST payer bearing Registration No 27AIIPG1824E1ZM all invoices

3 ITA No.3668/Mum/2026 (Lalji Murji Bhanushali) received against supply from Himadri Foods Ltd was Bonafide and can be easily evidenced from GST portal and invoking of Section 69 A as unexplained money and eventually applying Section 115 BBE for Tax Rate @78% was totally arbitrary and not based on fact and records of appellant. In the given circumstances of inquiry and confirmation where Ld. AO was failed to get communication the Appellant have no control and hence, it is failure and limitation of Ld. AO investigation approach and mechanism for which appellant cannot be treated unfairly and punished. 2. At the very outset, we noticed that the assessee was ex parte before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee considering the documents placed on record.

3.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case and keeping in view the above position in mind, we are inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to prove his case before the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the present appeal is restored back to files of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

4.

Before parting, we make it clear that the decision to restore the matter to the files of Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way

4 ITA No.3668/Mum/2026 (Lalji Murji Bhanushali) be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 07/07/2026 Z.U., PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Assessee 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →