MR. PIYUSH C SAMPAT ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -22(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3641/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 August 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be given an adequate opportunity and to make requisite compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a NIL income return for AY 2010-11. The case was reopened due to alleged fictitious losses of Rs. 15,65,402/- claimed through client code modification. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss, and the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and not deciding the grounds on merits, and whether the reopening under Section 148 and the subsequent disallowance were proper and followed principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR)
Hearing: 17.07.2025Pronounced: 22.08.2025

आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Lucknow [CIT(A)] dated 27.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year: 2010-2011.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal.

1.

“1. The Additional Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Addi CIT(A)) erred in framing an ex parte order. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Addl CIT(A) ought not to have passed an ex parte order.

2. The Addl CIT(A) erred in not deciding the grounds of appeal

1.

on merits. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Addl CIT(A) ought to have decided the following grounds of appeal on merits -

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 22(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under section 148 is bad in law and consequently, the assessment needs to be quashed.

2. The Assessing Officer erred in disallowing loss Rs 15.65.402 incurred on various transactions on the ground that the said loss is bogus and fictitiously created through client code modification. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought not to have disallowed the impugned loss inasmuch as the Assessing Officer, before making the said disallowance, has not appreciated the facts in its entirety, and as such, the disallowance is not warranted.

3. The Assessing Officer erred in making the impugned disallowance and framing the impugned order in violation and utter disregard to the principles of natural Justice. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the principles of natural justice and, having not followed, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and needs to be quashed." The appellant craves leave to add, to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return declaring NIL income for AY 2010-11. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation wing regarding fictitious losses booked by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 15,65,402/- by taking benefit of dubious Client Code Modification (CCM). The assessment was completed by disallowing the loss of Rs. 15,65,402/- claimed by the assessee and the income was assessed at NIL, vide AY 2010-11 Mr. Piyush C. Sampat order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 26.12.2016. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Despite several notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any compliance and therefore, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte on account of non- prosecution. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available before us. Since the order of Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the same for fresh adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to add, adequate opportunity shall be provided to the assessee and the assessee is also directed make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A).

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- AMIT SHUKLA RENU JAUHRI (न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 22.08.2025 दिव्य रमेश न ुंिग वकर/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / 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 →