TARACHAND MEHTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1133/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 October 2021AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the facts were unclear regarding the correct entity for assessment and the nature of the business. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concerned the reopening of assessment and additions for alleged bogus purchases. The assessee claimed they were not carrying out any business under the HUF PAN and lacked VAT registration.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the validity of the reopening of assessment and the confirmation of additions for bogus purchases, with a dispute over the correct entity for assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri Nishant
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna
Hearing: 26.10.2021Pronounced: 26.10.2021

O R D E R These appeals by the assessee are arising out of different orders of the CIT(A) – 30, Mumbai, in appeal Nos. CIT(A)-30/19(3)(5)/13938/2016-17 & CIT(A)- 30/19(3)(5)/13920/2016-17, vide orders of even date i.e. 13.11.2019. The assessment was framed by the ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai, for assessment years 2010 - 11 and 2011-12 , u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), vide orders of even date i.e. 12.03.2016.

2.

The only issue in these two appeals of the assessee is as regards to the orders of the CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer on the following two grounds:

i) re-opening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act; ii) confirming the addition of alleged bogus purchases in making addition in the hands of the assessee HUF having PAN AAAHT035P.

3.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee took us through the orders of the CIT(A), which are exparte and non-speaking on merits. The assessee before the Assessing Officer made submissions that he is not carrying out any business in the name of assessee HUF under the PAN AAAHT0395P and it has no registration number of VAT etc. The Assessing Officer, vide order sheet entry dated 22.02.2016, informed the assessee that PAN AAAHT0395P is associated with TIN of Bhavik Tube Corporation, which seems to be a proprietary concern of the assessee individual and not HUF. But these facts are not clear from either the order of the Assessing Officer or that of the CIT(A). The dispute is in whose hands these assessments have to be made is under consideration but the facts are not clear.

Since, the facts are not clear, I set aside the issue in both these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer with the consent of both the parties. Hence, I remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer without deliberating on merits.

4.

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th October 2021.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →