SHRI. NIZAMUDDIN MANSOORALI SAYANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD-17(2)(4), MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B R BASKARANSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILNizamuddin Mansoorali Sayani, B Block, 4th Floor, Room No.75,76,77, Bundeali Building, Haji Bachu Ali Road, Off. S.V.P. Road, Dongri Mumbai – 400009 PAN : ASYPS9959C
PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 25/03/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the Assessment Year
2011-12. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -
2
“1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submission of appellant and has not given reasonable opportunity to explain the case.
It is respectfully submitted that business of the appellant was mostly in cash and has made cash deposit in bank and made payment of expenses.
Without prejudice to what is stated above, if addition has to be sustained, it should be reasonable and not total amount of cash deposited and credit card payment.
The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing claim of appellant regarding commodity income at 1% which was actually loss. It is respectfully submitted that reasonable opportunity was not given to explain the case.”
It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. We further find that even during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the documents as sought by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) and therefore the assessment was completed on the best judgment basis under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on the basis of the material available on record. As per the assessee, he was staying in a tenanted premises, which he handed over to the landlord and migrated to Dubai in the year 2011-12 and thus could not respond to the notice issued under section 148 and also could not comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. We find that no details were also submitted before the learned CIT(A) and the additions made by the AO were affirmed vide impugned order. In the present appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorized Representative and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO.
In the facts and circumstances as noted above, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent his case on merits and produce all the 3
documents in support of his claim. Since in the present case, the assessee neither appeared before the AO nor before the learned CIT(A), we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the juri ictional AO for de novo adjudication on merits after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the details as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication. As the matter is being restored to the juri ictional AO for adjudication on merits, the other grievance raised by the assessee in the present appeal does not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/01/2025 BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, DATED: 30/01/2025
Prabhat
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1)
The Assessee;
(2)
The Revenue;
(3)
The PCIT / CIT (Judicial);
(4)
The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5)
Guard file.
By Order