MAARS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1355/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2025AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the orders of both the AO and the CIT(A) were ex-parte. It noted that the same CIT(A), in appeals for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17, had set aside the matters to the file of the AO. The CIT(A)'s order for those years indicated that the assessment order was passed under Section 144 of the Act and that the matter needed re-examination by the AO, exercising powers under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a). The Tribunal found the facts in the current appeals to be identical to those for the earlier AYs. Therefore, following the precedent set by the CIT(A) for the other assessment years and considering the identical facts, the Tribunal deemed it proper to restore the captioned appeals to the files of the AO. The AO was directed to follow the directions given by the CIT(A) in his order dated March 12, 2025, for the assessment years under consideration. The ratio decidendi is that when similar facts and procedural circumstances exist across different assessment years, and a higher appellate authority has provided a specific direction for one set of years, it is equitable to apply the same direction to the others, especially when the original assessments were ex-parte and the assessee seeks an opportunity to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Maars Infratech Private Limited, has filed three appeals against the orders of the CIT(A)-49, Mumbai, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2020-21. These appeals arise from a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conducted in the case of KSS Group on July 9, 2019. Consequently, proceedings under Section 153C of the Act were initiated against the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed ex-parte orders under Section 144 read with Section 153C due to the assessee's non-response to several notices. The CIT(A) also issued multiple notices, but the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments, leading the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeals and uphold the AO's orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should restore the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer, considering that the CIT(A) had previously set aside matters for AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 on similar facts. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that since the CIT(A) had remanded the matters to the AO for the remaining block period (AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17) by invoking powers under Section 251(1)(a) of the Act, the current appeals should also be restored to the AO for a fresh assessment. Revenue's Contention: The Departmental Representative (D/R) did not raise any objections to the assessee's prayer for restoration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153C,Section 144,Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Sharma (Hybrid)
For Respondent: Smt. Beena Santosh, D/R
Hearing: 28/04/2025Pronounced: 30/04/2025

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No. 1356/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 1357/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 1355/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश/O R D E R PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

are three separate appeals by the assessee preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-49, Mumbai dated 30/12/2024, [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AYs 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 respectively.

2.

Since common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, they were heard together and are disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in case of KSS Group on 09/07/2019. Consequent upon the search, the case of the assessee was centralized in the charge of Central Circle - 7(4), Mumbai. The documents and material evidences/information seized during the course of search had bearing on the income of the assessee company. Therefore, after recording satisfaction note, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated and accordingly, notices were issued and served upon the assessee. Several notices were issued but were not responded by the assessee and the AO was compelled to frame ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act.

4.

The ld. First Appellate Authority also issued several notices and, on each occasion, the assessee sought adjournment which prompted the ld. CIT(A) to conclude as follows:- “6.11 It is, thus, evident that the appellant has no evidence to substantiate the grounds taken and it has not even once argued with any supporting, relevant and 3 cogent arguments/averments. Thus, the appellant has failed to substantiate the grounds of appeal raised. Under the circumstances, I am not in a position to grant any relief to the appellant. Accordingly, I uphold the order of the AO, and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are DISMISSED.”

5. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority dated 12/03/2025 and pointed out that in the appeals of the remaining block period i.e., AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17, the ld. CIT(A) has remanded the matter to the file of the AO invoking the powers conferred upon him by the provisions of Section 251(1)(a) of the Act and prayed from restoration of the issues to the files of the AO. The ld. D/R did not raise any objections.

6. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the order of the AO and that of the ld. CIT(A) are ex-parte. We find that the same ld. CIT(A) in AY 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 has set aside the matter. The relevant findings read as under:- “10.6 I have considered the submission of the appellant. The contention of the appellant that the notice u/s 143(2) is issued beyond time does not have any merits because the appellant has linked the notice issued in the assessment proceedings u/s 153C to the date of the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act and not with the date of return filed in response to notice u/s 153C. It is seen that the assessment order has been passed u/s 144 of the Act. Considering the submission made by the appellant, I feel the matter needs to be re-examined by the AO. Therefore, in exercise of the powers granted under proviso to section 251(1)(a), the assessment order is set aside to the file of the Assessing officer with directions to make a fresh assessment. Further, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023] 454 ITR 212, the AO shall not make any addition in the completed/unabated assessments, in absence of any incriminating material. In case of abated assessments AO is free to make additions based on facts on record. Needless to say, the appellant shall be granted fair opportunity to be heard before passing of the order.”

7. As the impugned assessment order is also framed u/s 144 of the Act and as the appeals for other assessment years of the block period have been set aside, facts being identical, we deem it proper to restore the captioned appeals to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to follow the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order dated 12/03/2025 for the assessment years under consideration also.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →