Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, proprietor of M/s. Avish Traders, filed his return of income for AY 2012-13. The case was reopened based on information of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer made additions for bogus purchases and disallowed brokerage.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to 457 days. Considering the assessee was non-compliant before lower authorities, the Tribunal remanded the issues back to the AO to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present his case and documentary evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present his case before the Assessing Officer, despite being non-compliant before lower authorities, in the interest of natural justice and justice dispensation.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
(Assessment Year: 2012-13) Avish Jugalkishore Atal Deputy Commissioner of Income 3rd Floor, Trineshwar Complex, Tilak Tax – Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai Vs. Road, Akola – 444001. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai – 400051. PAN/GIR No. ABIPA6112C (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Dharan Gandhi Respondent by : Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia, (SR. DR.) Date of Hearing : 13.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 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) 54, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2012-13.
It is observed that this appeal has been filed belatedly with a delay of 457 days beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee had filed an affidavit for condoning the said delay. On perusal of the same, we deem it fit to hold that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay and we therefore condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
(A.Y. 2012-13) Avish Jugalkishore Atal “1. The assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 21.12.2014 is bad in law and without jurisdiction.
2. The reassessment proceeding initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation of the action of the Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 1,28,80,000/-with regard to bogus purchases of cotton bales.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. AO in not allowing brokerage expenses of Rs. 1,20,000/- 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for lack of prosecution which is contrary to settled position in law.
6. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is without sufficient opportunity of being heard as none of the notices were served on proper email address.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Avish Traders. The assessee had filed his return of income dated 30.09.2012, declaring total income at Rs. 25,39,467/-. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2017, based on the information that the assessee has made bogus purchases of cotton bales and cotton lint through Shri. Anil Nandlal Mundada, aggregating to Rs.1.30 Crore without any actual delivery of goods. Further, the learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) observed that the assessee had filed declaration under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, with respect to the said purchase for Rs. 1,20,000/- in which the assessee had made a declaration that the said purchase was made in the year 2012. The assessee was non-compliant before the ld. AO and the ld. AO had passed the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 21.12.2017, being the best judgment assessment, determining total income at Rs. 1,55,39,470/-, after making an addition on bogus purchases amounting to Rs.1,28,80,000/- and disallowance of brokerage of Rs. 1,20,000/-, pertaining to the said bogus purchases.
(A.Y. 2012-13) Avish Jugalkishore Atal 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide an ex parte order dated 11.08.2023, had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for the reason that the assessee has been non-compliant and has failed to substantiate his claim.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on the above-mentioned grounds.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has been non-compliant throughout the proceeding before the first appellate authority and had failed to furnish any explanation along with any supporting documentary evidence in support of his claim. The ld. CIT(A) has also not decided the issue on the merits of the case for the above-mentioned reason.
The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee has got a good case on the merits and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the lower authorities.
The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue to the lower authorities for the reason that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A) but has not availed of the same. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.