MAFATLAL BHAGRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(2)(3), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 6113/MUM/2024
(A.Y. 2011-12)

Mafatlal
Bhagraj
Jain
100 Gr. Floor, 2nd Pathan St.,
5th
Kumharwada,
Maruti
Mandir
Marg,
Mumbai 400004, Maharashtra v/s.
बनाम
Income Tax Officer Ward
No.
19(2)(3),
Piramal
Chamber,
Lower
Parel,
Mumbai
400013,
Maharashtra
स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADPJ0430G
Appellant/अपीलार्थी
..
Respondent/प्रतिवादी

Appellant by :
Shri D.C. Jain
Respondent by :
Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)

Date of Hearing
07.01.2025
Date of Pronouncement
13.01.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated
12.11.2024 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre,
Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 18.03.2016 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.]
2011-12. P a g e | 2
A.Y. 2011-12

Mafatlal Bhagraj Jain

P a g e | 3
A.Y. 2011-12

Mafatlal Bhagraj Jain from the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra about some of the dealers under MVAT 2002 indulging in the practice of providing accommodation entries in the form of issuing bogus sales/purchase bills without supplying any goods but providing only accommodation entries. As per the list of beneficiary parties, the assessee was also one of them. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assesse was asked to furnish supporting evidences in respect of the purchases made from the above entities. In response to the same, the AR furnished part the details only.
Moreover, notice u/s.133(6) of the Act was issued and sent by registered post to the said parties at the addresses provided by the assessee could not be served and were returned back 2011-11 unserved by the postal authorities with the remarks ‘not known’ or ‘no such address’ ‘left’ etc. On being confronted, the assessee neither produced these parties nor furnish their new addresses but simply furnished copies of ledger accounts in the books of the assessee etc. The AO observed that all the above said hawala parties had confessed in the statement recorded on oath before Sales tax
Authorities that they had not done any genuine business as well as there was no actual delivery of goods to the purchase parties, the onus was on the assesse to prove the genuineness of the transactions. It was concluded by him that the assessee did not make genuine purchases from these dealers. By recording the non-genuine purchases at a higher level,

P a g e | 4
A.Y. 2011-12

Mafatlal Bhagraj Jain the assessee managed to siphon off the profit to the extent of difference between the actual purchases and non genuine purchases. In the instant case, the assessee has failed to bring on record the relevant and corroborative evidences or material to support his contention.
4. In the subsequent appeal, the ld.CIT(A) observed the assessee did not furnish any adduced evidence or explanation to prove that the purchases made were genuine. He concurred with the AO that the assessee did not make genuine purchases from these hawala dealers. In this case, the assessee had obtained accommodation entries ог non- genuine purchases to the tune of Rs.1,42,26,852/- but details of the purchases amounting to Rs.33,19,203/- were recorded in his books of account. The total addition of Rs. 1,13,22,549/- was confirmed.
5. We have carefully gone into the facts of the case and all relevant materials on record. Before us, the ld.AR has vehemently argued that the ld.CIT(A) did not grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and passed the order in ex parte manner. The ld.DR on the other hand relied upon the orders of authorities below. It is quite evident from the contents of the assessment order that the assessee failed to make proper compliance and various requisition for details were not fully complied with. It is also a fact that the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated on merits of P a g e | 5
A.Y. 2011-12

Mafatlal Bhagraj Jain the case and has mainly reiterated the findings and observations of the AO. He has also not given inadequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. It is stated by the assessee that he received only one notice u/s 250 dated 24.10.2024, and appeal was dismissed on 12.11.2024. His approach does not appear to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. There is no independent application of mind on the issue involved on his part. By passing ex-parte order, he denied the assessee to canvass his case properly. His action is also not in accordance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the 1961 Act, wherein CIT(A) is obligated to state points for determination in appeal before him, the decision thereon and the reasons for determination.

Mafatlal Bhagraj Jain natural justice in the set aside remand proceedings for de novo adjudication of the appeal of the assessee filed before him.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13/01/2025. SANDEEP GOSAIN
PRABHASH SHANKAR
(न्याययकसदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(लेखाकारसदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai
ददनाुंक /Date 13.01.2025
Lubhna Shaikh / Steno

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT
4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

सत्यावपि प्रवि ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.