SMITA NARESH VARAIYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

This appeal was earlier disposed of vide order dated 05/04/2021. However, vide order dated December 03, 2021, the matter was recalled on the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs

The facts in brief are that the assessee is a resident individual stated to be engaged in trading of diamonds under proprietorship concern, viz. M/s S.N. Jewellery. The assessment in this case was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.

The assessment was so framed pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing that the assessee procured bogus purchase bills of diamond for Rs.70.28 lakhs from an entity, viz. M/s Vitrag Jewels which is said to be group entity of accommodation entry provider Shri Rajendra Jain. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 26/03/2015 which was followed by statutory notices calling for requisite information from assessee with respect to purchases made from M/s Vitrag Jewels.

We have heard the matter. In the course of hearing, Ld.AR of the assessee requested for adjudication of appeal relying on the ratio of decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Mohmd. Haji Adam & Co (in ITA No.1004 of 2016). The assessee is directed to furnish details before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall make a de novo assessment in the light of decision of jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs Mohmd. Haji Adam & Co (supra). The ground No.1 of the appeal is allowed, for statistical purpose.

The assessee, in appeal has also assailed validity of reopening and the assessment order on the ground of limitation. The legal grounds are raised for the first time before the Tribunal. However, no submissions were advanced by the AR of the assessee on these legal issues. Hence, grounds 2 & 3 of the appeal are dismissed.