POONAM LIFESTYLE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 852/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 February 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be provided one more opportunity before the CIT(A) to present its arguments and evidence. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after a reasoned order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte without providing an adequate opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) had confirmed additions made by the AO on account of alleged bogus unsecured loans and disallowed related interest and commission expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and confirming additions based on alleged bogus loans.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Sharma, AR
For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR
Hearing: 01/02/2022Pronounced: 03/02/2022

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

1.

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2013-14, raising following grounds:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in passing the impugned ex-parte order without affording the appellant adequate opportunity of being heard.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT (A) erred in holding that the appellant has entered into accommodation entries of bogus unsecured loan through Shri Bhanwarlal Jain merely on the basis of his statement.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in making an addition of Rs.2,33,00,000 /- by treating the genuine loan as alleged bogus loan.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of Id. A0 in disallowing the claim of interest expenses of Rs. 2,93,863/- on the alleged plea that the same was paid on bogus loan. 5. On the facts and circumstance of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of ld. A.O. in disallowing the commission expense of Rs. 46,600/- on the alleged plea that the same was paid on bogus loan. 6. The appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal

on or before the hearing.

2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel pointed that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in ex-parte manner and no opportunity has been provided to the assessee. In view of the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A), the adjournment sought by the Ld. counsel of the assessee was rejected and both the parties were heard on the grounds raised. We find that the Assessing Officer has made addition in terms of section 68 of the Act for unexplained loans amounting to ₹2,33,00,000/- on the basis of the information of accommodation entries received based on the search and survey action carried out at the premises of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai.

3. Before, the Ld. CIT(A) non-presented on behalf of the assessee despite various notices issued to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has merely referred different paras of the order of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without detailed reasoning for arriving at the decision. We also find that Ld. CIT(A) has issued first notice 02.01.2018 and thereafter issued three notices on 28.08.2018, 21.09,2018 and 18.09.2019. Now, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal seeking restoration of the appeal to Ld. CIT(A).

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that assessee should be provided one more opportunity before the Ld. CIT(A) to advance its arguments/evidence in support of its claim. In the interest of substantial justice, we restore the issue in dispute back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue on merit and pass a reasoned order after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The 1st ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

4.1 The remaining grounds are not adjudicated as the appeal has already been restored back to the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

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

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →