BHARAT JYOTI IMPEX,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 167/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed on the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being ex parte. The assessee sought another opportunity before the CIT(A) due to reasons for non-appearance.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were illegal due to procedural defects and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 151,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE JAGADISH

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari ( SR

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082726940(1) dated 18-Nov-2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [in short Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in law in upholding the assessment order dated 26/03/2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (in short Ld. FAO) bearing DIN No ITBA/AST/S/147/2023 24/1063368100(1) determining the assessed income at Rs. 2,20,33,090 as against the returned income of Rs. 1,49,91,490. 2) 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the reassessment order passed by the Ld. FAO is illegal and bad in law. 3) 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not holding that notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act ought to have been issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre and not by the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (in short Ld. JAO) as mandated by circular no. 18 of 2022 dated 29.03.2022 issued by the CBDT, thereby, rendering the entire assessment proceedings illegal, bad in law and non-est. 4) 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the original Notice dated 20/04/2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act bearing DIN ITBA/AST/S/148 1/2022 23/1042787887(1) is without taking prior approval of the Specified Authority mentioned u/s 151(ii) of the Act. 5) 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the approval granted is in mechanical manner. 6) 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case by passing the order without following the principles of natural justice by not granting effective opportunity of being heard. 7) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding the disallowance of sum of Rs. 40,32,000 being alleged bogus purchase made from Germanium Trading Pvt Ltd. 8) 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of sum of Rs. 30,09,600 being alleged bogus sale made to Avantrade Multitrading Pvt Ltd. 9) 9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the invocation of the provision of section 115BBE of the Act and taxing the alleged unexplained income comprising of alleged bogus sale at the rate of 60 Percentage and further charging of surcharge at the rate of 25 percentage thereof. 10) 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter OR modify all OR any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.

2.

At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the assessee was ex parte before the Ld. CIT(A). From the records, we noticed that numerous opportunities were granted to the assessee, however, the assessee could not substantiate its claim raised before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

3.

Now, before us, the Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has sought another opportunity to contest the matter before the First Appellate Authority and has explained the reasons for his non-appearance before the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that there was reasonable cause due to which the assessee could not make an effective representation before the Ld. CIT(A), the Bench is of the view that adequate opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. This is subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund, and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

5.

Needless to mention that the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 12.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 12.05.2026 Copy to: BHARAT JYOTI IMPEX, 22, PRINCESS STREET, SHAMALDAS GANDHI MARG, MARINE LINES, 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400002, MAHARASHTRA DCIT, 2 PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400012, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →