MANBHAWAN EXIM PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1289/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 for each assessment year. The CIT(A) was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present all necessary details and evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed against reassessment orders. The assessee had failed to provide complete documentation to the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to the dismissal of their appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was given a fair opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and whether the reassessment proceedings and subsequent additions were valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69C,Section 68,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 06.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (HYBRID HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member

ITA Nos:1289 to 1291/SRT/2025 Assessment Year(s): 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18

Manbhawan Exim Pvt. Ltd., Vs ITO, Office No.503, H N 5/1143, Ward – 1(1)(3), Semahabir Chambers, Surat Hanuman Sheri, Haripura, Mahidharpura, Surat - 395003 PAN: AAGCM9487J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CA Revenue Represented : Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 29.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 06.05.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER: T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These three appeals are filed by the assessee as against the separate appellate orders dated 29.09.2025, 26.09.2025 and 26.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the separate reassessment orders passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961

I.T.A Nos.1289-1291//SRT/2025/AYs.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 2 Manbhawan Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 respectively. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are similar, with consent of both parties, these appeals were clubbed and heard together for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No.1289/SRT/2025 for AY 2013-14 is taken as the ‘lead case’.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 1289/SRT/2025 for AY 2013-14 are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the 1 learned CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order without providing fair opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of initiating reassessment proceeding under section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and require to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that reassessment proceedings under 3 section 148 is in violation of provisions of section 149 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as the proceeding for A.Y. 2013-14 is time barred. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of passing the assessment order under wrong section i.e., 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B instead of passing assessment order under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus the entire proceedings is required to be quashed. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO being 5 100 percent of genuine purchases of Rs.65,00,000/- from Kanika Gems Pvt Ltd as suspicious purchase under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO in making the addition of Rs.43,50,000 as unexplained cash credits under 6 section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the facts that the appellant

I.T.A Nos.1289-1291//SRT/2025/AYs.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 3 Manbhawan Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

has genuine sales transactions of Rs.41,00,000/- and the balance amount which was received as advances has been returned to the said party. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) failed to consider that no addition under section 68 as unexplained cash credits can be made on account of amount received against sales made to sundry debtors and any additions of the same would lead to double taxation. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO of making additions under section 68 as unexplained cash credits in spite of the fact that the appellant had received the said amount against the sales made to M/s Money Gems and the said sales were already credited to profit & loss account and considered while computing total income of the appellant. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. 9 CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld CIT CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld AO in charging interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company, filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 on 01.10.2013, declaring total income of Rs.59,000/-. Regular assessment u/s 143(1) of the Act was completed on 29.03.2016, determining the total income of Rs.95,720/-. Based on the information from Investigation Wing, the assessee is a beneficiary of the bogus entities, namely, M/s Kanika Gems Pvt. Ltd., which is involved in alleged money laundering. Therefore, the assessment was re-opened. During the re- assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that relevant documents which resulted in making addition of bogus purchase, amounting to Rs.65,00,000/- and bogus sales amounting to Rs.433,50,000/- u/s 69C and 68 of the Act respectively.

I.T.A Nos.1289-1291//SRT/2025/AYs.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 4 Manbhawan Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

4.

Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In spite of seven opportunities were given by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed partial response on 25.02.2025 and 27.03.2025 and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) and dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

5.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee pleaded that it is prepared to file all necessary details and documents before the appellate authority, if one more opportunity of hearing be given to the assessee.

6.

On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR and Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue strongly opposed the submission and requested to confirm the additions made by the lower authorities.

7.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Since the assessee failed to file details before the Ld. CIT(A) and only made partial compliance. In the interests of principle of natural justice, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for each Assessment Years, i.e., AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2017-18 payable by the assessee to the Income-tax Department within two weeks of receipt copy of this order and produce payment of cost receipt, before the Ld. CIT(A). Subject to the payment of cost, the appeals are restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and decide them on merits by giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, that the assessee may be given final opportunity to produce all necessary

I.T.A Nos.1289-1291//SRT/2025/AYs.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18 5 Manbhawan Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

details and evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) and decide the matter on the merits of the case. There is no change in the facts of the remaining two appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2017-18 respectively.

8.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos.1289 to 1291/SRT/2025 for AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2017-18 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 06-05-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA PRASAN SINHA) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat Dated: 06/05/2026 SAMANTA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // TRUE COPY // उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, सूरत

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →