ETERNITY JEWELS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPESL-NFAC DELHI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5594/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 April 2025AY 2013-14Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings and failed to furnish documentary evidence. To provide an opportunity, the issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for denova adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a manufacturer and exporter of Diamond Studded Gold Jewellery, filed its return declaring Nil income. The assessment order determined total income at Rs. 1,15,18,651/-, which was later revised to Rs. 1,35,01,599/- after a revisionary proceeding u/s 263. A penalty of Rs. 6,12,732/- was levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income was justified, and whether the assessee's non-compliance in appellate proceedings warranted upholding the penalty without merit consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144(c),Section 263,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanshu Joshi SR. DR
Pronounced: 29.04.2025

(Assessment Year: 2013-14) Eternity Jewels Commissioner of Income Tax G-11, Gems & Jewellery Complex-2, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi Seepz, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 096. Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400012. PAN/GIR No. AAAFE7145E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : None : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi SR. DR. Respondent by : 02.04.2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2013-14.

2. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby proceed to dispose off this appeal by hearing the learned Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) and on perusal of the materials available on record.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. In law and as per the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A), erred in confirming the levy penalty of Rs 6,12,732/- in total disregard of the facts (A.Y. 2013 -14) Eternity Jewels submitted in the detailed Statement of Facts filed Thus, the order passed is bad in law and therefore deserves to be annulled. 2 In law and as per the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income when all the facts were duly explained and order u/s 143(3) was passed after examination of the issue based on which revision was directed Thus, the order passed on misinterpretation of the facts of the case and change of opinion is erroneous /unjust/ unreasonable and thus the order passed deserves to be quashed 3. In law and as per the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in levying penalty based on the observation that the appellant has accepted the addition since it has not preferred an appeal. Thus, the order passed on such an absurd conclusion deserves to be quashed.

4. In law and as per the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in levying penalty purely based on the observation that the appellant did not avail of the opportunity granted by the Hon'ble CIT(A) and hence appellant was not serious to follow up with the appellate proceedings, without going on the merit of the case, where all the details were otherwise on record and even stated in the appellate order.”

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a manufactures and exporter of Diamond Studded Gold Jewellery. The assessee had filed its return of income electronically dated 23.10.2013, declaring total income at Rs. Nil after set off of brought forward losses. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee and the assessment order dated 16.125.2016, was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144(c) of the Act, where the ld. AO determined the total income at Rs. 1,15,18,651/-. The ld. PCIT invoked the revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act for the reason that the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set aside the assessment order dated 16.12.2016, vide an order dated 25.02.2019. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) had passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act dated 31.12.2019, determining total income at Rs. 1,35,01,599/- (A.Y. 2013 -14) Eternity Jewels after making an addition of Rs. 19,82,948/-. The ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. The ld. AO vide order dated 11.01.2022 levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,12,732/-.

3. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the penalty order and the ld. CIT(A) vide an ex parte order dated 02.09.2024 upheld the penalty levied by the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings and has failed to furnish any reply before the ld. CIT(A).

4.

The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. before the first appellate authority but has been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceeding. Though, the assessee has raised various grounds on the merits and on the legal ground the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidences in support of its claim even before us. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case before the First Appellate Authority with all supporting documentary evidences to substantiate its claim. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings without any undue delay on its side and the ld. CIT(A) is also directed to decide the issue on the merits of the case based on the submission of the assessee. We therefore remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denova adjudication.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →