KEWALKISHAN KOTIMAL AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 28 (2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7344/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 September 2021AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) and decided to grant one more opportunity for a hearing. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order sustaining additions related to bogus purchases, disallowance of deductions, and unexplained money/investment. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard before the lower appellate authority, and if the additions/disallowances made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) require fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HONBLE

Hearing: 02.09.2021Pronounced: 02.09.2021

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–26, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 25.09.2019 for the A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds in his appeal: - (A.Y: 2009-10) Kewalkishan Kotimal Agarwal “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 26, Mumbai has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 21,72,574/- being 100% of alleged bogus purchases.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 26, Mumbai has erred in sustaining the disallowance of deduction claimed under chapter VI-A of Rs. 1,12,540/-.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 26, Mumbai has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 70,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 26, Mumbai has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 250,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 26, Mumbai has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte.

6.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

3.

Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR on merits.

4.

We have heard Ld. DR, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance

(A.Y: 2009-10) Kewalkishan Kotimal Agarwal made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the virtual court on 02.09.2021.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →