SAGAR SHOPPING DEVELOPERS,SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI
|आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई|
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 1793/MUM/2025
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17)
Sagar Shopping Developers
Sagar Avenue 2, Opposite
J. N. road, Near Vikola
Bridge, Santacruz East,
Mumba, Maharashtra-
400055
v/s.
बिाम
DCIT
Piramal Chambers, Dr. SS
Road Marg, Parel, Mumbai-
400012
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADFS1422M
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रनिवादी
निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by:
Shri Anirudh Dave (instructed by Piyush Agarwal)
राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by:
Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.
DR.
स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing
25.06.2025
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/National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30.01.2025 passed u/s.
P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2016-17
Sagar Shopping Developers
250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B passed by the A.O. is grossly erroneous, unjustified and bad in law and is therefore liable to be quashed.
0 That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the A.O. grossly erred in considering repayment of loan to M/s. Surya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained investments u/s. 69.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm filed its return declaring nil income for AY 2016-17. On the basis of information received from the Investigating Wing regarding bogus accommodation entries taken by the assessee from M/s. Surya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., the case was reopened, and a notice u/s 148 was issued. The assessment was completed vide order dated 31.05.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 65,00,000/- after making addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since no compliance was made by the assessee to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.01.2025. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
P a g e | 3
A.Y. 2016-17
Sagar Shopping Developers
At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was unable to make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A), as the authorised representative, was undergoing personal difficulties. He has therefore requested that the matter may be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition. 7. In the interest of justice, we hereby set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2025. BEENA PILLAI RENU JAUHRI (न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
दिन ुंक /Date 30.06.2025
अननकेत स ुंह र जपूत/ 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.
P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2016-17
Sagar Shopping Developers
सत्यानित प्रनत ////
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt.