MAA ASHAPURA DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI
PerAnikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai, [for brevity,
‘Ld.CIT(A)]passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act;), date of order 18/11/2024. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer 32(2)(3), Mumbai*for brevity, the “Ld. AO”+
passed under section 143(3), date of order 20/03/2015. 2
ITA 276/Mum/2025
Maa Ashapura Developers
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return under section 139(1) by declaring loss of Rs. 40,80,924/-. The assessee is a partnership firm and involved in business of builders and developers. Subsequently, based on the information received from the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai with respect to dealers providing accommodation entries by issuing bogus bills without supply of any goods, the notice under section 142(1) was issued. Finally, the Ld.AO found that the assessee had purchased from different parties total amountto Rs.18,23,600/-, which was added back under section 69C by treating it as unexplained expenditure. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) passed an expert order and upheld the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved on the impugned appeal order, the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The assessee filed a paper book spanning pages 1 to 112, which is placed on the records. The Ld.AR argued that the appeal order was passed exparte and without considering the submission of the assessee, the order was passed. The Ld.AR also stated that the purchases from M/s Krishna Structural Steel (India) was noted by the Ld.AO in the assessment order amount to Rs.9,09,328/- instead of the correct amount of purchase at Rs.94,999/-. The relevant bill is placed at APB page 106. The relevant part of the assessment order, paragraph 4 is extracted below:- “4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the details of purchases made during the year under consideration along with VAT / TIN No. In response, the assessee has furnished the details of all the parties along with VAT No.. from whom, the purchases were made. The VAT numbers furnished by the assessee have been verified with the information received from the office of DGIT (Inv), Mumbai about the parties, who are engaged in the business of accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods in exchange of cash
3
ITA 276/Mum/2025
Maa Ashapura Developers on commission basis. It is found that the assessee has introduced accommodation entries by way of bogus purchases from the following parties:-
Sr.No. Name of the party
VAT / TIN
Amount (Rs.)
1
M/s Orient Cement
27770246923V
5695736
2
M/s Dhanlaxmi Enterprises
27600222233V
18245
3
M/s Pooja Marble & Granite
27250276503V
253367
4
M/s Priti Sales Corporation
27450176192V
35254
5
M/s Arihant Traders
27230613104V
11670
6
M/s Krishna Structural Steel (India)
27050771410V
909328
TOTAL
1823600
The Ld.AR submitted a rectified chart and the said purchase amount is amended.
The said chart is reproduced as below:-
Sr.No.
Name of the party
Amount (Rs.)
1
M/s Orient Cement
5,95,736
2
M/s Dhanlaxmi Enterprises
18,245
3
M/s Pooja Marble & Granite
2,53,367
4
M/s Priti Sales Corporation
35,254
5
M/s Arihant Traders
11,670
6
M/s Krishna Structural Steel (India)
94,999
Total
10,09,271
The Ld. DR supported the findings of the revenue authorities and argued in favour of the departmental stand. However, the Ld. DR did not raise any specific objection to the factual submissions made by the Ld. AR.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that, in the impugned assessment order, purchases from M/s Krishna Structural Steel (India) were recorded at Rs. 9,09,328/-, whereas the assessee has claimed the correct amount to be Rs.94,999/-. The relevant
4
ITA 276/Mum/2025
Maa Ashapura Developers purchase bill has been placed on record in the paper book. However, at this stage, we are not in a position to verify the genuineness of the said transaction.
It is further noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the appellate order ex parte. The reasonable opportunity was duly denied for submission of evidence.
In our considered view, the matter deserves to be remanded to the file of the Ld.
CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee’s submissions afresh, and to specifically examine the assessee’s claim regarding the correct purchase amount from M/s Krishna Structural Steel (India).
Needless to say, theassessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the remand proceedings. At the same time, the assessee is expected to act diligently and extend full cooperation to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No.
276/Mum/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th day of June, 2025. (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai,दिन ांक/Dated: 12/06/2025
Pavanan
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयुक्त CIT 4. दवभ गीयप्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., मुबांई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग र्डफ इल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.