What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the proceedings.

The assessee appealed an addition of Rs. 1,08,06,320/- for bogus purchases. The assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) on two occasions, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The assessee also failed to appear before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for bogus purchases was justified and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Munnidevi Pawan Kumar Agrawal… vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HONBLE & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HONBLE

For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair

Hearing: 07.07.2022Pronounced: 14.07.2022

O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 11.11.2016 for the A.Y. 2009-10.

2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) - 28 has erred in law and on facts in confirming the (A.Y. 2009-10) Munnidevi Pawankumar Agarwal addition of Rs.1,08,06,320/- made by the ld. A O, on account of bogus purchases without appreciating the following: a. All the purchases made are genuine and against proper billing. b. There are no purchases made from the parties stated in the Assessment Order. C. The source of information of the assessing officer is not reliable and there was no circumstantial evidence gathered to arrive at the conclusion.

The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 1,08,06,320/- made in respect of bogus purchases from hawala parties be deleted as the same is unwarranted.

3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.”

Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR on merits.

Considered the submissions of Ld.DR and material placed on record. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity only in two occasions and assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the (A.Y. 2009-10) Munnidevi Pawankumar Agarwal Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th July, 2022.

MUNNIDEVI PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL,THANE vs. ITO 17(2)(4), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments