RAJBHUSHAN OMPRAKASH DIXIT,MUMBAI vs. JT. COMMISSIONER (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2012-13
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
17.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – 48, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13, raising following grounds:
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 48,
Mumbai [Ld.
[74,00,000] m
(O ), Centra r.w.s. 147
appreciating t in the instant
2. That on th the Learned
Appellant to p
3. That on th the Leamed documents o reopen the as merely chang
4. That on th the Ld. CIT(A assessment o
Act and conse initio.
5. That on th the Learned assessment o third party an Ld. AO is bas invalid.
6. That on th the Learned C
AO in reasse entries of seiz
'doubt' which 7. That on th the Learned without appre concrete evid and not mere
8. That on th the Learned A (c) and 271(1)
Raj
CIT(A)] erred in upholding the addit made by the Ld. Jt. Commissioner of I al Circle 2(4), Mumbai [Ld. AO] under Sec of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ['Ac the factual matrix and judicial precedents matter.
he facts and circumstances of the case, a CIT(A) erred in denying a final opportu present its case before the Appellate autho he facts and circumstances of the case, a CIT(A) erred in not appreciating tha r information was available with the ssessment and hence the reassessmen ge of opinion is not legally valid.
he facts and circumstances of the case, a A) erred in ignoring the fact that the order is time barred as prescribed u/s 15
equently, the impugned assessment orde he facts and circumstances of the case, a CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the order is based on unsubstantiated diary nd therefore the entire reassessment ac sed upon the basis of dumb documents he facts and circumstances of the case, a CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the a essment of Income of the Appellant on th zed electronic data without any basis an is also admitted by the Ld. AO.
he facts and circumstances of the case, a CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of eciating that the reassessment should b dence linking the Appellant to the escap assumptions.
he facts and circumstances of the case, a AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings
)(b) of the Act jbhushan Omprakash Dixit
2
tion of INR
Income Tax ction 143(3) ct'] without s applicable and in law, unity to the ority.
and in law, at no fresh
Ld. AO to nt based on and in law, e impugned
53(2) of the er is void ab and in law, e impugned entries of a ction by the and hence and in law, action of Ld.
he basis of nd based on and in law, the Ld. AO e based on ped income and in law, s u/s 271(1)
At the very outse submitted that the L without considering prayed that the matt adjudication on merit 3. We have heard and perused the mat Ld. CIT(A) had issue which, according to However, before us, t affidavit, explaining t 3.1 In the said affi unable to respond to involvement in ong Directorate of Enfor Office (SFIO) in relati is stated that these investigating agencie appellate proceedings 3.2 Further, the a authorized represen Accountant, has be 2018, which deprived Raj et, learned counsel appearing f Ld. CIT(A) has disposed of the a the submissions of the assess ter may be remanded to the Ld. ts, in accordance with law. the rival submissions advance terial available on record. It is ob ed as many as nine notices t o the Ld. CIT(A), were not the assessee has placed on reco the reasons for such non-compli idavit, the assessee has averre the notices issued by the Ld. C going criminal proceedings in rcement and the Serious Frau ion to a company, in which he w proceedings, being rigorously es, constrained his ability to e s effectively. assessee has stated that his ntative, Mr. Hemant S. Hath een suffering from Alzheimer's d the assessee of professional g jbhushan Omprakash Dixit 3 for the assessee appeal ex-parte, see. It was thus CIT(A) for fresh d by both sides bserved that the to the assessee, complied with. ord a duly sworn iance. ed that he was CIT(A) due to his nitiated by the ud Investigation was a director. It pursued by the engage with the s long-standing hi, a Chartered s disease since guidance during the relevant period. sought by the newly were not acceded to impugned order date whether such reque part of the affidavit is “13. I say tha in his order d issued to file failed to respo 14. I say tha ECIR no. 32 promoters and SBL are absc pursuing the the said proc unable to res and 05.12.20 15. I say tha filed a Comp Hon'ble Sess promoters and SBL are absc pursuing the m 16. I say tha Paragraph No due to this re submissions CIT (A) 48, Mu 17. I say that CA has been 2018. Mr. H replies on my since 2013. since 2018, h by the Depa Raj
It is also submitted that adjo y appointed advocate on two oc o by the Ld. CIT(A). It is pointe ed 17.12.2024 does not record sts were considered or rejecte s reproduced as under:
at it is alleged by the Ld. Commissioner of dated 17.12.2024 that despite various n submission from 25.11.2019 to 10.12.2
ond to them and have merely sought adjo at the Directorate of Enforcement had r of 2017 against Sterling Biotech Lim d directors in 2018. I say that since the conding, the said investigating agency matter by going after the directors. I say ceedings before the Directorate of Enforce spond particularly to notices issued on 019. at the Serious Fraud Investigation Office laint bearing SPL Case No. 517 of 202
ions Court against Sterling Biotech Lim d directors in 2022. I say that since the conding, the said investigating agency matter by going after the directors.
at the aforesaid Criminal Proceedings m o. 14 & 15 are still going on against m eason I was not able to respond to not issued by Ld. Commissioner of Income umbai.
t my authorized representative, Mr. Hema n suffering from Alzheimer's disease sin
Hemant S. Hathi had been advising m y behalf to all the queries raised by the However, due to his deteriorating hea he has been unable to respond to the no artment. Consequently, I was bereft of jbhushan Omprakash Dixit
4
ournments were ccasions, which ed out that the any finding on ed. The relevant f Income Tax notices being
2024, I have ournment.
registered an mited and its promoters of is rigorously y that due to ement, I was n 25.11.2019
("SFIO") had 22 before the mited and its promoters of is rigorously mentioned in e and hence tices seeking
Tax, Appeal, ant S. Hathi, nce the year me and filing e Department lth condition otices issued f his sound professional issued during
18. I say tha current Advo sought adjour
Ld. Commiss
However, it is whether the L
Mumbai had record for adj
19. I say t
24.07.2024, submission a Proceedings g aforesaid par
20. I say tha notices was n
Criminal Proc and also due available to m
Hemant S. Ha
21. I say tha the Ld. Comm and hence th reasons due notices issued
CIT (A) 48, M
4. The portion of t the failure to respon neither willful nor d circumstances beyon assertions made in rebutted by the Reven
4.1 In view of the a justice, we are of th
Raj advice and was unable to respond to g this period at in response to your notice dated 13.1
ocate on Record had vide letter dated rnment and permission to file Vakalatnam sioner of Income Tax, Appeal, CIT (A) 4
s nowhere mentioned in the order dated
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal allowed or rejected the request of my journment.
that with regards to notices dated
12.09.2024 and 10.12.2024, I was un as directed in the said notices due to going on against me as described in d ragraphs.
at the said inability to respond effectively not deliberate and the same was due to ceedings conducted by various agencies to the absence of professional advice wh me in the absence of my authorized repres athi, CA who was suffering from Alzheime at I have tried diligently to pursue my A missioner of Income Tax, Appeal, CIT (A) his Hon'ble Tribunal should liberally c to which I was unable to effectively res d by the Ld. Commissioner of Income T
Mumbai.”
the affidavit, reproduced above nd to the notices issued by the deliberate, but was occasioned nd the control of the assessee. I the affidavit have not been nue.
above and considering the princ e opinion that the assessee wa jbhushan Omprakash Dixit
5
o the notices
11.2024, my
19.11.2024
ma before the 48, Mumbai.
d 17.12.2024
l, CIT (A) 48, advocate on 15.03.2024, nable to file the Criminal detail in the y to the said the rigorous s against me hich was not sentative Mr.
er disease.
Appeal before
48, Mumbai consider the spond to the Tax, Appeal, establishes that Ld. CIT(A) was d by bona fide
Importantly, the controverted or ciples of natural as prevented by sufficient cause from therefore, find it just by the Ld. CIT(A) a adjudication. The L merits, after affordi being heard to the as 4.2 Ordered accordi
5. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 10/07/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Raj m participating in the appellate p t and appropriate to set aside th and remand the matter to h d. CIT(A) shall decide the ap ing adequate and reasonable ssessee.
ingly.
the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 10/0
/- CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu jbhushan Omprakash Dixit
6
proceedings. We, he order passed him for de-novo ppeal afresh on opportunity of is allowed for 07/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai