Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return for AY 2014-15, which was initially assessed at a low income. The case was later reopened based on information from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus imports and large foreign remittances. The revised assessment led to significant additions.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance during both the assessment and appellate stages. Given the lack of response and the earlier dismissal by the CIT(A), the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal merits dismissal due to the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout the proceedings and lack of any submissions before the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 250, 69C, 115BBE, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing 30.06.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-48 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 06.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15.
A.Y. 2014-15 Uniquestar Gems (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The Lid. AO has erred in reopening the case u's 147 of the Act and in issuing the notice u's 148 of the Act and also the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the same.
2. The Ld. AO has erred in the reopening of the case as in reason recording the name of the parties appearing, the assessee has no transactions with those parties but in the assessment order, mentioned that the assessee has indirect transactions. It is clear that the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO has not applied his mind and re-opened the case just for information without further verification.
3. The assessee has submitted the corresponding sales against the alleged purchases. The Ld. AO has erred in making additions for bogus purchases but treated sales as genuine and Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed it.
4. The Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee before making any additions
5. The Ld. AO has erred in applying section 69C of the Act and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same
6. The Ld. AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.17,94,79,018/- being a bogus and non-genuine transaction and added u/s 690 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same.
7. The Ld. AO has erred in making an addition of Rs.38,78,492/- as the disallowance of forex loss and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same.
8. The Ld. AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 10,34,412/-on estimation as the disallowance of expenses and also the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same
9. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any grounds of appeal”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 1,38,770/- on 30.11.2014. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 20.12.2016 at the same income. Subsequently, the case was reopened after receipt of information from the Investigation Wing regardingbogus imports, resulting in large foreign remittances detected by the A.Y. 2014-15 Uniquestar Gems (India) Pvt. Ltd. Enforcement Directorate (ED). Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued for the reason that bogus payment of Rs. 3.61 cr. had been made by the assessee to M/s. Nippon Incorporation Ltd. and Rs. 19.54 cr. to Cornel Trading (HK) Ltd. Subsequently, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 18,45,30,692/- vide order dated 30.03.2022 after making various additions/disallowances.
4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, despite several notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), no compliance was made by the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2024.
5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. On the date fixed for hearing, no compliance was made by the assessee, nor had any application for adjournment been filed. Earlier also when the case was fixed for hearing on 03.04.2025, adjournment had been sought by the assessee’s representative. Since the assessee has not made any compliance on the last date of hearing nor sought any adjournment, it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. The non-compliant conduct of assessee is also evident from the fact that no response was submitted during the first appellate proceedings as well.
A.Y. 2014-15 Uniquestar Gems (India) Pvt. Ltd. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the assessee has nothing to submit with regard to the appeal filed by it. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2025.