FRAME IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The Id which, illegal, liable t 3. The Id withou 4. The Id of Rs. debts circum 2. Briefly stated, t Private Limited Com year under considera provisions of the Inc ‘the Act’). Upon rece assessee had derived allegedly controlled Assessing Officer r chargeable to tax had amended procedure notice under section such notice, the as Thereafter, statutory also issued from time 2.1 Upon considera assessee, the Assessi debt, rejected the sa ITA d CIT(A) was not justified in confirming is bad-in-law, void ab initio, barred by contrary to the facts and circumstances to be annulled. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming th ut giving proper opportunities of being hea CIT(A) was not justified in confirming th 73,45,19,941/- on account of disallowa without considering the fa mstances of the case. the facts of the case are that pany, did not file its return of ation within the due date presc come-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafte eipt of specific information indi d benefit of bogus bad debts t and managed by the ‘Ruch recorded reasons to believe d escaped assessment. After du contemplated under section 1 n 148 of the Act was issued. H ssessee failed to file its retu y notices under section 142(1) e to time. ation of the submissions ad ing Officer, finding no merit in t ame and added a sum of Rs.73 Frame Impex Pvt. Ltd 2 A No. 4649/MUM/2025 g the order, y limitation, of the case, he addition ard. he addition ance of bad acts and the assessee, a f income for the cribed under the r referred to as icating that the through entities hi Group’, the e that income uly following the 48A of the Act, However, despite urn of income. of the Act were dvanced by the the claim of bad ,45,19,941/– to the total income of th of Business or Profes 3. On appeal, the L [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] issued n but did not furnis compliance, the Ld. Officer and recorded “5.4.3 The AO and written o debts lies on In absence of: • Evidence to • Ledger acco • Party-wise d • Any proof of …the AO was business activ 4. Before us, Lear that the Ld. CIT(A), hearing of the appe assessee filed part re furnish the remaini further opportunity, appeal and passed th contended that the ITA he assessee under the head ‘Pr ssion’. Learned Commissioner of Incom notices of hearing. The assessee h complete details. In the a CIT(A) confirmed the findings o as under: O’s observation is that fictitious debts w off. The burden of proving the genuinen the assessee as per established judicial f: prove the genuineness of the trade trans unts of debtors details of the provisions f write-off in debtor accounts s justified in disallowing the same. Sin vity appears dubious, the addition is uph rned Counsel for the assessee vide letter dated 09.06.2025, eal to 19.06.2025. In respon eply on 12.06.2025 and sought ing details. However, without the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to he impugned order on 26.06.20 assessee is now in a posit Frame Impex Pvt. Ltd 3 A No. 4649/MUM/2025 rofits and Gains me Tax (Appeals) partly complied absence of full of the Assessing were created ness of these l precedents. actions ce the entire held.” has submitted , adjourned the nse thereto, the t further time to affording such dispose of the 025. It is further tion to furnish complete evidences t that the matter may b 4.1 Having consider the material on reco sustained essentially trade confirmations, actual write-off. The assessee be afforde substantiate its clai made and a request f 4.2 In view of the we deem it appropria CIT(A) on the issue in a direction to adju opportunity to the as of its claim. The as cooperation and furn 4.3 The ground No. we have already resto for deciding afresh, appeal are rendered a ITA to substantiate its claim, and be remanded back for fresh con red the rival submissions and u ord, we find that the disallow y for want of supporting evid debtor ledgers, party-wise deta principles of natural justice d ed adequate and reasonable m, particularly when partial c for extension of time was on reco foregoing, and in the larger int ate to set aside the impugned o n dispute and restore the matte udicate the same afresh, after ssessee to file all relevant evide sessee, on its part, is directed nish all requisite documents with . 3 of the appeal of the assesse ored the matter back to the file o the other grounds raised on t academic. Frame Impex Pvt. Ltd 4 A No. 4649/MUM/2025 therefore prays nsideration. upon perusal of wance has been dences such as ails and proof of emand that the opportunity to compliance was ord. terest of justice, order of the Ld. r to his file with r granting due nces in support d to extend full hout fail. ee is allowed. As of the Ld. CIT(A) the merit of the 5. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (SUCHITRA RAGHU JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 09/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.