PRANKSTERS INN PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1278/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 January 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was at fault for non-compliance, the issues needed to be adjudicated properly for substantial justice. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, subject to the assessee paying a cost.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) which dismissed its appeal and upheld the assessment order. The NFAC dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to provide necessary documents despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the case should be remanded for a fresh decision despite the assessee's non-compliance, in the interest of substantial justice?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69C,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Gotimukul Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 09.01.2025Pronounced: 09.01.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.01.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant case are that though the assessment order appears to has been passed u/s 144 r.w.s.

147 of the Act, however, from the assessment order, it appears that the Assessee submitted partial details and complied with some of the notices.

The Assessing Officer (AO) ultimately made various additions such as:

Total Income as per return 10363397 Add notional income from Bungalow 1680000 at Lonavala Add interest paid disallowed 3630465 Add depreciation as discussed 5029752 Add unexplained expenses u/s 69C 0 Add expenses pertains to Income from 1460989 House Property Assessed total income 1437809 Rounded off to 14,37,810

3.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said assessment order and the additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording 5 opportunities, except seeking adjournment on one occasion, eventually made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances; specifically in the absence of relevant documents and reply/submissions, the Ld. Commissioner was constrained to decide the appeal filed by the Assessee as ex-parte and by observing and taking refuge of well-known dictum of law “Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt” which means “that law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who are careless of their right. In order to claim one’s right, he must be watchful of his right. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of using their rights, are entitled for the benefits of law. Law confers rights on persons who are vigilant of their rights”. The Ld. Commissioner by holding that the Assessee has failed to discharge its duty and has scant regard for due process of law; ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, finding no infirmity in the assessment order dated 27.06.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

4.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Tribunal.

The Assessee, on being asked, failed to demonstrate any plausible reason for non-responding to the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner.

However, it is a fact that the issues involved in this case remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and in proper manner in the absence of relevant documents, reply/submission which the Assessee has failed to file. The Ld. D.R. vehemently opposed the contention of the Assessee and supported the orders passed by the authorities below.

5.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as for deciding the issues proper and just decision is essential and therefore for considering the non-compliance by the Assessee and in the interest of substantial justice, this Court is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh suffice to by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, however subject to the cost of Rs.11,000 to be deposited within 15 days of this order in the Revenue Department under “other heads” without claiming any disallowance/deduction of this cost.

6.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, in the aforesaid terms.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →