M/S.SAB CREATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(2), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4617/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. Since the assessee was not prosecuting the appeal, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the lower appellate authority for a fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 88 days. The assessee did not appear for multiple hearings, and the lower appellate authority had passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be admitted despite a significant delay and the assessee's non-prosecution. The primary issue of alleged bogus purchases was not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Hearing: 24/05/2022Pronounced: 26/05/2022

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in A.Y.2013-14 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane in appeal No. 524/2014-15 dated 28/02/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 25/09/2014 by the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Thane(hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. A.O. erred in adding a sum of Rs.10,72,673/- on account of alleged bogus purchases.

2. The Ld.A.O. erred in not considering statements of the appellant that the appellant has maintained quantity tally of all purchases, sales, opening and closing stocks and there is no room for accounting bogus purchases. 3. The Ld. A.O. erred in not appreciating that the appellant may have purchased the goods from the grey market and has taken bills from the following parties;- Name of the hawala party Amount of bill taken by the assessee Excel Industrial Corporation Rs. 2,24,614/- Cosmos Enterprises Rs. 2,56,778/- K.V. Trading Rs. 2,68,840/- Kesar Enterprises Rs. 3,22,441/- Total Rs.10,72,673/-

4. The Ld. A.O. erred in relying on the information provided/ filed by the Maharashtra Sales-tax Department and further relied on the third parties statements. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter or vary the Grounds of Appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal.

2.1. We find that at the outset there is a delay of 88 days in filing of appeal by the assessee. We have gone through the condonation petition filed by the assessee and are convinced that assessee was prevented from reasonable cause in not preferring appeal before us within the prescribed time. Accordingly, delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned and appeal of the assessee is admitted for adjudication.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Several opportunities were indeed given to the assessee and we find that assessee is not inclined to prosecute this appeal by his continuous absence. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had passed an exparte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee by reiterating the findings of the ld. AO. Hence, we deem it fit and appropriate to remand this appeal to file of the ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits and decide the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

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

Order pronounced on 26/05/2022 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →