ROMAAN MOHD HUSSAIN PATHAN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-21(3), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI

1. 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 10/11/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 04/12/2017, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016.

Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the ground reproduced at Paragraph 2 above.

The Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee appearing before us submitted that the Assessee was not able to gather the relevant bills for supply of mud and water at the relevant time and therefore, could not furnish the same during the assessment proceedings. It was further, submitted that the Assessee was proceeded ex-parte in appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) on account of communication gap between the Assessee and the tax professional handling the appeal. She sought an opportunity to make out a good case on merits before the CIT(A).

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative pointed out that during the assessment proceedings no bills were furnished by the Assessee and that the Assessee had failed to make 2 Assessment Year 2015-2016 representation before CIT(A) despite sufficient opportunities having been granted.

We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record. On perusal of the order impugned, we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by reiterating that findings of the Assessing Officer that bills were not produced by the Assessee. On perusal of Form No. 35 we find that the Assessee had stated the Assessee wanted to place on record additional evidence. However, the Assessee did not filed purchase bills as additional evidence before the CIT(A) and was proceeded ex-parte as no representation could be made on account of communication gap between the Assessee and the concerned tax professional. The Assessee has now stated that the Assessee has been able to procure the bills/supporting document. We further note that the disallowance was finally made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the payments were excessive by invoking provisions contained in Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. On perusal of the Assessment Order we find that the details of ‘fair market value’ on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had concluded that the purchase consideration paid by the Assessee was excessive/unreasonable have not been stated therein. There are no findings on this issue by the CIT(A). Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the Assessee to make out a case on merits before the Learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 10/11/2024, passed by the Learned CIT(A) is set aside with the direction to adjudicate the appeal preferred by the Assessee afresh after granting the Assessee an opportunity of being heard. All the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open. The Assessee shall be at liberty to move application for admission of additional evidence before the CIT(A). In terms of aforesaid Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.