CLIFFORD DOMINIC COLACO,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIOANAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL
MEMBER
&
SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1111/MUM/2025
(निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-20)
Clifford Dominic Colaco
B 521, Ganesh Darshan,
Umarkhade Road, Chinch
Bunder, Maharashtra-
400009
v/s.
बिधम
Assessment Unit
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAZPC8794L
Appellant/अपीलधर्थी
..
Respondent/प्रनिवधदी
निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by:
Mr. Chanchal Ghosh
रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by:
Shri Yogesh Kumar
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing
08.05.2025
घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement
30.05.2025
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 22.10.2024 passed u/s.
250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2019-20
Clifford Dominic Colaco
“This appeal is filed by assessee before Honorable Tribunal against the appellate order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal-NFAC- passed u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.10.2024 for AY 2019-2020
which in turn arise from the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer.
On the facts and circumstances of case the learned assessing officer, ITO
Ward-27(1) while completing assessment and passing assessment order u/s 144 r.ws.147 rw.s. 1448 of the Income Tax Act dated 23.07.2074 for A.Y.2019-
2020 has erred in assessing total income of assessee at Rs.4,35,07,984/- as against returned income of Rs.5,43,287/- thereby making total addition of Rs
4,29,64,697/ as follows:
(1) Addition of Rs 1,71,52,519/- as unexplained credit u/s.68
(2) Addition of Rs. 2,58,12,178/-as unexplained money u/s 69A.
Aggrieved by assessment order the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 26.03.2024, Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to National Faceless
Appeals Centre (NFAC)
On appeal the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals National Faceless
Appeals Centre (NFAC) has upheld the action of AO and confirming the order passed by AO dismissed the appeal of assessee.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 5,43,290/- on 22.11.2019. The case was reopened after receipt of information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 23.03.2021. The assessee was given several opportunities to establish the genuineness of sales and purchase transactions amounting to Rs. 1,71,52,519/- shown from M/s Jash Dealmark Ltd. and M/s Reena Tinaaz Pvt. Ltd. However, in the absence of any compliance, the assessee was found to have deposited cash amounting to Rs. 2,58,12,178/- in his bank account with Mahanagar Co- operative Bank Ltd. As no compliance was made to the notices issued by the Ld. AO, the assessment was completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 4,35,07,984/- after making the following additions: Unexplained money u/s 69A Rs. 2,58,12,178/-
P a g e | 3
A.Y. 2019-20
Clifford Dominic Colaco
Unexplained expenditure u/s 68
Rs. 1,71,52,519/-
Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 22.10.2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed as no compliance was made to all the three notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Ld. CIT(A). 5. At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is filed after a delay of 49 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay, along with an affidavit explaining the circumstances resulting in the delay. After perusal of the same, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing of appeal, hence, the same is hereby condoned. 6. Before us, Ld. AR has submitted that all the three notices were issued within one month, giving a very short time for compliance by the Ld. CIT(A). As such, the assessee was not able to make the requisite compliance. He has, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. Ld. DR has not controverted the above proposition. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. We notice that Ld. CIT(A) had issued three notices, dated 10.09.2024, 20,09.2024 and 25.09.2024, giving the assessee less than two weeks’ time to P a g e | 4 A.Y. 2019-20
Clifford Dominic Colaco make requisite compliance. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A).
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.05.2025. NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY
RENU JAUHRI
(न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
दिन ुंक /Date 30.05.2025
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.
सत्यानित प्रनत ////
आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER,
सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt.