PUNJAB SIND FOODS (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. WARD 24(3)(4), MUMBAI

Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer assessing the total income at Rs.2,39,05,110/- is bad in law, illegal, in excess of and/or for want of jurisdiction and/or otherwise void. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Assessment order having been passed by the AO without mentioning the reason for not mentioning DIN number is bad in law in terms of Circular No. 19 of 2019 dated 14th August 2019. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under Section 148, 143(2) and 142(1) were bad in law as the same have not been received and as the same have not been issued in accordance to the provisions of Section 282 of the Income tax Act and further the Assessment Order is not dated. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, having regard to the fact that the assessment has been completed in the name of Jaswinder Singh Bajaj, Proprietor, the said addition of Rs.1.87 crores on an illusory figure of credits in the bank aggregating to Rs.18.68 crores is based on assumptions and presumptions and has no bearing to the records of the proprietary concern. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing Officer has made an unwarranted addition of an illusory figure of cash deposit of Rs.52,18,717/- without an iota of evidence. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 20.05.2019 since it is not in one of the three formats which have been prescribed by the CBDT Instruction F.No.225/157/2017/ITA-II dated 23rd June 2017. Therefore the assessment framed was invalid and void in ab initio. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, notice under section 148 dated 31st March 2019 is bad in law since the reasons to believe along with satisfaction note and an approval of the 2 sanctioning authority as required under section 151(2) has not been furnished. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order u/s 147 passed by the ITO, 24(2)(1), Mumbai is illegal, bad in law and void ab initio in view of monetary limits laid down by CBDT as per jurisdiction for framing of assessment vested with the ACIT and not with the ITO in accordance with CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 dated 31.01.2011 and Instruction No.6/2011 dated 08.04.2021.

At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 204 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit, it has been submitted that assessee had engaged a firm of Chartered Accountants to handle tax compliance affairs. However, due to professional oversight and gross negligence on part of the consultant, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed statutory period. It was further explained that proprietor of assessee was preoccupied with managing the manufacturing unit at Karad and was attending to acute family friction during the relevant period. Having heard both parties and considered the affidavit and condonation petition filed by assessee, we find that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay of 204 days was non-deliberate and occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 204 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that notice under section 148 dated 31.03.2019 was issued in the name of M/s. Punjab Sind Foods (India) bearing PAN AAKFP1794J on the basis of ITBA portal data suggesting cash deposits of Rs. 52,18,770/- in Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank, Bandra, Mumbai. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 142(1) and section 143(2) were issued. Since there was no response/compliance to the statutory notices sent at the initial address, ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte under section 144 read with section 147. Ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 52,18,770/- as unexplained money under section 69A in respect of cash deposits. Furthermore, observing total non-cash bank credits of Rs. 18.68 Crores in the said bank account, ld. Assessing Officer estimated business income @ 10% on such credits, making further addition of Rs. 1,86,86,340/-, thereby assessing total income at Rs. 2,39,05,110/-.

Before us, ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that both the assessment order passed by ld. Assessing Officer and the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte orders. He submitted that assessee’s concern was originally a partnership firm which was converted into a Limited Company on 05.04.2011. Thereafter, the business under the trade name M/s. Punjab Sind Foods (India) was carried on by Shri Jasvinder Singh Bajaj as a sole proprietary concern. It was submitted that through an administrative oversight, initial PAN AAKFP1794J continued in the name of the firm, but income from the business of M/s. Punjab Sind Foods (India) (including the bank transactions and cash deposits in PMC Bank account) was fully offered to tax in the individual Return of Income filed by Shri Jasvinder Singh Bajaj under his individual PAN AERPB2252G for Assessment Year 2012-13, which was accepted under section 143(1). Ld. Counsel contended that taxing the very same cash deposits and bank turnover again under PAN AAKFP1794J amounts to double taxation of the exact same income, which is impermissible under the law. Ld. Counsel prayed that as assessee could not present complete factual matrix and reconciliation before ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A), one opportunity may be granted to place all documentary evidence on record.

On the other hand, ld. CIT DR supported the orders of ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A), contending that sufficient opportunities were provided to assessee at both stages, which assessee failed to avail.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the record that the assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 was passed ex-parte by ld. Assessing Officer due to non-compliance. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without adjudicating the substantive factual grievances of assessee on proper verification.

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