Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged an addition made by the AO on account of unexplained investment. The assessee claimed that they had provided various documents including a correct PAN and stated that the PAN used by the AO for the addition was incorrect and possibly used by a third party.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the Ld. Commissioner had dismissed the appeal without properly analyzing the submissions and documents provided by the assessee. The assessment order was also ex-parte.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO was sustainable without proper consideration of the assessee's documents and submissions regarding a disputed PAN. Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal without proper analysis.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 250, 139(1), 44AB, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.03.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 21.11.2019 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act has made the addition of Rs.27,63,726/- on account of unexplained investment.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner and mainly claimed that though the Assessee has filed various documents such as copy of PAN card showing PAN No. AALHS3577D, copy of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and copy of computation of income. However, the AO without considering the same made the aforesaid addition. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner also filed written submissions along with various documents forming part of original assessment records in connection with the aforesaid PAN such as:
“ii] Copy of letter filed on 22.11.2019 addressed to ITO- 19(2)(3) regarding incorrect PAN
[iii] Copy of letter dated 08.01.15 ACIT, Circe-19(3), Mumbai regarding submission of [a] ledger extract of the accounts of the broker MangalKeshav Securities Ltd [b] Audit Report
[iii] ITR for the A.Y. 2012-13 recording the changed address and the original PAN
[iv] Assessment Order u/s 143 for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 21.01.2015 under PAN: DAALHS3377D
[v] Assessment Order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 for A.Υ. 2012-13 dated 21.11.2019 under PAΝ: ΑΑΕΗΜ1483P”.
3.1 The Assessee also claimed that the books of accounts of the Assessee were duly audited by a chartered accountant u/s 44AB of the Act vide report in form No.3CB-CD dated 23.09.2012 and the Assessee during the year under consideration had e-filed its return of income on dated 29.09.2012 declaring loss of Rs.(-)21,54,766/- under the aforesaid PAN and the Assessee vide letter dated 02.05.2019 has also informed the AO about the change of address, however, still the AO made the addition by using the PAN No.AAEHM1483P. The Assessee has also claimed that said duplicate PAN No. AAEHM1483P was utilized by a third party. The Assessee therefore on the aforesaid submissions and documents has claimed that the order passed by the AO is unsustainable.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.
Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record, it is observed that though the Ld. Commissioner has mentioned the submissions and documents filed by the Assessee in the impugned order, however, ultimately dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee by concluding as under:
“As per the above findings it is held that the explanation as well as the submission of documents made by the appellant is insufficient to prove the substantial claim made in the grounds of appeal leading to dismissal of grounds of appeal taken.”
This Court observe that the Assessee before the AO on dated 02.05.2019 had filed letter dated 23.04.2019 in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, disclosing correct PAN number i.e. PAN No. AALHS3577D but not the PAN No.AAEHM1483P. The Assessee before the AO has also claimed that none of his family members also does have the above PAN number and therefore requested to look into the matter and either to cancel the proceedings or give necessary details in order to enable the Assessee to do the needful. The Assessee before the AO also filed another letter dated 19.11.2019 on dated 22.11.2019 mentioning the correct PAN No.AALHS3577D and disowning PAN No.AAEHM1483P. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner also appraised the aforesaid facts, however, of no avail.
At this stage, this Court is inclined not to go into the controversy whether the Assessee has filed the relevant documents and/or application and/or intimation with regard to the disowning of PAN No.AAEHM1483P and other relevant documents. From the impugned order it is observed that the Assessee in order to substantiate its claim filed various documents, however, the Ld. Commissioner without analyzing and/or considering the said documents and the claim of the Assessee, passed the impugned order in cryptic manner and/or without analyzing the peculiar facts and circumstances in its right perspective and proper manner and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner. However, considering the peculiar facts to the effect that assessment order has been passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, which is also more or less ex-parte and the AO failed to consider the submissions and intimation/letters as claimed by the Assessee and therefore this Court deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the AO for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and by considering the documents to be filed by the Assessee as the Assessee is ordered to file.
The Assessee is accordingly directed to file the relevant documents in support of its claim before the AO. In case of any default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of AO for decision afresh in the aforesaid terms.
In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.08.2025.