KASHI IMPEX ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(2), MUMBAI

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM ITA No. 127/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

Kashi Impex ITO Ward 32(2)(2), Mumbai C A-403, Chandra Apartments, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Mandpeshwar Road, Borivali Vs. Complex, Mumbai - 400051 West, Mumbai - 400103

PAN/GIR No. AAHFK9137B (Appellant) (Respondent) :

Assessee by : Shri Pritesh Mehta Respondent by : Smt . B. Brahma Vidya – SR DR

Date of Hearing : 14.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2026

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The instant appeal is preferred by the assessee, against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, ADDL/JCIT (Appeals)-4 Chennai, (in short‘ld.CIT(A)’), dated 30.12.2025, for the Assessment Year 2007-08, which in turn arises from the assessment order u/s. 143(3), r.w.s. section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short‘ the Act’),dated 09.11.2018passed by Income Tax Officer, ward-32(2)(2), Mumbai.

ITA No. 127/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2007-08) Kashi Impex, Mumbai 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee,reads as under:

“1. The assessing officer did not provide the assessing officer with adequate opportunity of presenting its case and being heard. The assessing officer passed the aforesaid order in haste and without application of mind. The aforesaid order was passed ex parte without giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

ITA No. 127/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2007-08) Kashi Impex, Mumbai 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal to any stage of appellate proceedings. 3. At the outset, learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that the impugned

assessment dated 09.11.2018 was passe, consequentially in terms of the order of Hon’ble ITAT dated 15.06.2017 in ITA No. 32/Mum/2017. Wherein, the issue

was set aside to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, as

the assessee was notprovided with opportunity to cross-examine Shri. Rajendra

Jain of Bhanwar Lal Jain Group, who was subjected to a search and seizure

action and was the genesis of impugned additions. During the set aside

assessment proceedings, the assessee was failed to furnish any details,in

response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the

Assessing Officer vide order dated 09.11.2018, has confirmed the addition of

unexplained expenditure u/s. 69 at the rate of 12.5% of Rs. 8,38,647/- for

purchases from M/s Adi Impex at Rs. 1,04,831/- and 100% of Rs. 10,03,860/-

regarding the purchases from M/s Sun Diam.

Authority, but the assessee remain totally non-compliant. Thus, the additions

made are confirmed and appeal of assessee was dismissed. 5. Being aggrieved with the findings of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

before us in the present mater.

ITA No. 127/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2007-08) Kashi Impex, Mumbai 6. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the

entire addition without considering the facts of case on merits. It is submitted

that the assessee had submitted its response and submissions on 08.11.2022,

acknowledgement furnished at page 4 of the APB. The finding of Ld. CIT(A)

that the assessee was non cooperative in furnishing the details for claim of

purchase was not correct, as the assessee had submitted documents before the

Ld. CIT(A), but he did not to referred to such submissions.

of the ld.CIT(A) and submitted to upheld the same.

record. Admittedly, in the present case, the addition was sustained by the Ld.

CIT(A) having belief that the assessee had not furnished any details before us.

The order of Ld. CIT(A) thus qualifies to be an ex-parte order. Before us the

assessee furnished acknowledgment of compliance before Ld. CIT(A) on

08.11.2022,which cannot be brushed aside, without consideration. It might be

the case that submissions of assessee left attention of Ld. CIT(A), as there is no

mention about such submission in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). The

grievance of assessee is that the assessee was not provided with sufficient /

adequate opportunities by the ld. AO and the Ld CIT(A) was failed in

appreciate the details furnished by the assessee. Be that as it may, once the

ITA No. 127/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2007-08) Kashi Impex, Mumbai details furnished by the assessee are not considered by the assessee, it clearly

shows violation of principle of natural justice. Assessee’s non participation

towards remand proceedings, hints assessee’s casual attitude. But to meet the

ends of justice and to arrive at a logical and justified conclusion, even in the

second round of proceedings, following the principle of natural justice, we are

constrained to restore this matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh

adjudication. The assessee is directed to be attentive and compliant towards the

notices in set aside proceedings, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) would be at

liberty to decide the issue in accordance with law.

in aforesaid terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25.05.2026

SSd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated:- 25.05.2026 Aditi Pandare, Private Secretary

ITA No. 127/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2007-08) Kashi Impex, Mumbai

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai