SAGAR SHOPPING DEVELOPERS,SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed it to decide the appeal afresh on merits after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to make requisite compliance.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its return declaring nil income for AY 2016-17. The case was reopened based on information regarding bogus accommodation entries, and an addition was made on account of unexplained investment. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits due to the assessee's representative's personal difficulties leading to non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sagar Shopping Developers v/s. DCIT Sagar Avenue 2, Opposite बिाम Piramal Chambers, Dr. SS J. N. road, Near Vikola Road Marg, Parel, Mumbai- Bridge, Santacruz East, 400012 Mumba, Maharashtra- 400055 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.
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. 2.0 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.”
3. 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.
A.Y. 2016-17 Sagar Shopping Developers 6. 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.
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).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2025.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
