SHREEKISHAN JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 42/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 March 2025AY 2018-19Bench: JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG (President), SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without adjudicating on merits because the assessee did not respond to notices, allegedly sent to a wrong email ID. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in civil and interior construction and trading, had assessments reopened by the AO based on information about accommodation entries for bogus purchases. The AO made additions under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in passing ex-parte orders without considering the merits of the case, and whether the assessee was prevented from responding due to incorrect communication of notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN

O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :

All the three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order(s) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘Ld.CIT(A)’] and they relate to AYs. 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil and interior construction and also carrying on trading business through his proprietary concern, named, Salasar Exteriors. The AO has reopened the assessment of all these three years on the basis of information received by him that the assessee has taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessments of all the three years u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by making an addition of alleged bogus purchases.

3.

Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee did not respond and hence, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made in all the three years in the ex-parte order passed by him. Hence, the assessee has filed these three appeals.

4.

We heard the parties and perused the record. At the outset, we notice that the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds urged by the assessee before him in all the three years on merits, since the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by him. In this regard, the Ld.AR submitted that the notices were sent by the Ld.CIT(A) to the wrong e-mail ID and hence, the assessee was not aware of the said notices. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good chance to win his case both on legal grounds and also on merits.

5.

We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the orders ex-parte without adjudicating the grounds on merits, we feel it appropriate to restore all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating them afresh, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the issues raised in all these appeals.

6.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →