M/S. PATSON INDUSTRIES,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 683/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 October 2018AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 93-day delay. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a partner's accident. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 16,47,640/- on account of alleged bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits. Whether the purchases made were bogus.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Chandresh Shah, AR

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Vadodara dated 12.01.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee main

ITA No. 683/Ahd/2017 2 . A.Y. 2009-10 contention was that as he filed belatedly appeal by 93 days. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine.

2.

We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. The assessee M/s Patsort Industries made purchases from Smt Nainudevi A Prajapati (Prop, M/s. Brahmani Trading Co.). Thus, assessee's Income to the extent of bogus purchases made from M/s, Brahmani Trading Co, has escaped assessment."

3.

Vide notice u/s. 142(1) issued on 02/02/2015, the fact of bogus purchases was apprised to the assesses that during assessment proceedings in the case of Smt Nainudevi A Prajapati (Prop. M/s. Brahmani Trading Co., 492, GIDC, Makarpura, Near Himalaya Machinery, Baroda- 390010)- PAN: ALXPPS917H, it is noticed that during the F.Y. 2008-09 she neither purchased any material from suppliers nor made actual sales to customers but provided accommodation bills. Accommodation sales bills were provided to customers against A/c payee cheque & the amount returned back to the customers by bearer cheques or cash. In view of this please explain as to why the amount of purchases made from Smt Nainudevi A Prajapati (Prop. M/s. Brahmani Trading Co.)

4.

Thereafter notice was issued by the A.O., assessee replied but same was not tenable in the eyes of ld. A.O. and he made addition of Rs. 16,47,640/-.

5.

Before ld. CIT(A), appellant filed appeal delayed by 93 days. Appellant contention is that partner of the firm met with an accident; therefore, appeal could not be filed on time. But ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the plea of appellant and without deciding the matter on merit. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. In the interest of justice, we are taking a lenient view. We are of the

ITA No. 683/Ahd/2017 3 . A.Y. 2009-10 view that appellant case should be decided on merit. Thus, we condone the delay and set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the ld., CIT(A) to decide matter afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

6.

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

Order pronounced in Open Court on 23- 10- 2018

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 23/10/2018 Rajesh Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) – 4. The CIT concerned. 5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER

Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →