Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key 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.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144B, 144, 69
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.