S M ASSOCIATES,TALOJA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1748/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 October 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee claimed the notices from the CIT(A)/NFAC were not received, leading to an ex-parte order, and requested an opportunity to present supporting evidence, the matter should be remanded. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision after providing a hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed a return declaring Nil income. The AO found that capital of Rs. 3,02,00,000/- was introduced, which the assessee claimed as partner's contribution but failed to support with evidence. The AO made an addition of Rs. 3,02,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present evidence for capital contribution when an ex-parte order was passed due to alleged non-receipt of hearing notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271AAC(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Shridhar Achari
For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Hearing: 07.10.2025Pronounced: 09.10.2025

Assessment Year : 2018-19 S. M. Associates, Vs. ITO, National e- Shop No.6, S.M. Plaza, Assessment Centre, Sector- 23, Taloja, Delhi. Raigad- 410208. PAN : ADJFS7283H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Shridhar Achari Revenue by : Shri Bharat Andhale Date of hearing : 07.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. The A.O. has erred in law and on facts in making additions to Gross Total Income by Rs.3,02,00,000/- which Capital Contribution by partners to the Partnership firm.

2. The A.O. has erred in law and on facts in initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) and u/s.271AAC(1).

3. The order appealed against is illegal, invalid and void-ab- initio.”

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm and had filed its return of income on 23.10.2018 declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act were issued. The Assessing Officer found that capital to the tune of Rs.3,02,00,000/- was introduced during the period under consideration. The assessee claimed that above amount was contributed by partners of the firm. However, the assessee could not produce any supporting evidence with regard to introduction of above capital of Rs.3,02,00,000/- by the partners and therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining total income of Rs.3,02,00,000/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.Nil. The above assessed income includes disallowance u/s 68 of Rs.3,02,00,000/-.

4.

Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

5.

It is this above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6.

Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted that the notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC were not received by the assessee which resulted in ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Ld. AR further submitted that each and every details regarding capital contribution by partners are available with the assessee’s partnership firm and if one opportunity is provided to the assessee, he is in position to explain the capital contribution by the partners.

7.

Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.

8.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. It is the sole request of the assessee to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and to provide one more opportunity of hearing so that he can produce documents/evidences in support of its contentions. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law and after providing reasonable

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 →