CHANDERKUMAR OMPRAKASH HUF,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VASHI

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

“Ground No.1: Section 250: In Facts and circumstances of the case and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in dismissing appeal merely on the ground of non-prosecution of appeal without dealing with the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant along with detailed statement of facts attached to form 35.

Appellant contends that it could respond in appellate proceedings since the hearing notices were not sent to email id registered in form 35 filed.

Ground No.2: Section 148: In Facts and circumstances of the case and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming action of Ld. Assessing Officer in assumption of jurisdiction in initiating reassessment proceedings which is entirely based on third party information/statements withoutindependent application of my while recording reasons for re-opening of assessment.

Appellant contends that Ld Assessing Officer has initiated reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of information supplied by the Investigation

Wing, Karnal which in turn is based on generalized statement of third party who has not named the Appellant in his statement and hence it is a borrowed satisfaction and not the own satisfaction of the Ld. Assessing Officer

Ground No.3: Section 151: In Facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the issuance of notice u/s 148 is wholly without jurisdiction in absence of grant of approval by competent authority after recording proper sanctions for recording reasons as mandated under section 151 of the Act.

Appellant contends that the competent authority under section 151 has not accorded sanction after independent application of mind that it is fit for re- opening of assessment for the relevant assessment year.

Ground No.4: Section 143(3) r.w.s 147: In Facts and circumstances of the case and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming action of Ld. Assessing Officer in completing assessment proceeding under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 without appreciating the fact that Appellant has declared income in return of income after getting the accounts audited within the provisions of the Act and hence drawing adverse inference merely on the basis of thirty party information is bad in law and void ab-initio.

Appellant contends that as per alleged information search and seizure action has been undertaken in case of one Shri Hitesh Jain and the business transactionundertaken by Appellant is with one M/s Shubhan Agro India (Prop Sushil Sharma) and hence both being independent entity under the Act.

Ground No 5: Unexplained Expenditure: In Facts and circumstance of thecase and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.30,03,482/- being payments made to a supplier M/s Shubhan Agro India (Prop Sushil Sharma) against the purchases affected from the supplier by treating the same as unexplained expenditure and bogus

(a) by rushing through the reassessment proceedings without giving proper opportunity of being heard though Ld. Assessing Officer had ample time left for completing assessment proceedings.

(b) without bringing on record any tangible evidence for the allegations made by him in the assessment order,

(c) without appreciating that the payment was made to the supplier through banking channel and there is no evidence on record that the said amount has flown back to the Appellant and (d) without providing the statement of the third party who had given hostile statement about the supplier behind the back of the Appellant, thereby denying the opportunity of cross examining the hostile witness.

Ground No 6: Order Against Principle Of Nature Justice: In Facts and circumstances of the case and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.30,03,482/-thereby brushing aside the crucial documentary evidences, which were easilyavailable to Ld. Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, hence proceedings are against the basic principle of natural justice. i) Copy of Purchases Register ii) Copy of Bank Statement iii)Copy of Ledger Account iv) Copy of Purchases invoice

Ground NO 7: Unexplained Expenditure: In the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming action of Ld. Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.30,03,482/- being payments made to a supplier against the purchases affected from the supplier by treating the same as unexplained expenditure and bogus without appreciating that no disallowance is called for when the Appellant has affected sales against the purchases from the alleged supplier and that can be proved by one to one identification.

The Appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or ground of appeal on or before the hearing.”

The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is delay of 43 days in filing appeal before Tribunal. The assessee has already filed application for condonation of delay as well as affidavit of karta of assessee-HUF. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee while filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) provided email address as finance@omsomgroup.com. As primary e-mail and other mohitcmurgai@omsomgroup.com. The notice was issued at some different email. Thus, notice of hearing was not issued through such email, copy of screen shot of ITBA portal showing issuance of notice on Trivedi.rajensra09@gamil.com is filed. The ld. AR submits that since appeal of assessee was dismissed in ex-parte proceeding without allowing opportunity and that the assessee was not aware of passing order bt ld CIT(A). The assessee filed appeal immediately on coming to know the order of dismissal by ld CIT(A). The delay in filing appeal is not inordinate and may be condoned. He further prayed that ld CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merit, therefore, may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal on merit.

Considering the explanation of ld. AR of the assessee, I find reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing appeal. Further, considering the fact that ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in ex-parte proceeding.

Therefore, accepting the prayer of ld. AR of the assessee, the appeal is restored back to the file of appeal by ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate of the grounds of appeal afresh and in accordance with law. Needless to direct before passing assessment order afresh, the assessing officer shall allow reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance and not to seek adjournment without any valid reasons. In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purpose.