DCIT, CC - 5(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CYBER INFOSYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 304/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 August 2021AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the income determination methods of both the AO and CIT(A) lacked basis. Due to the assessee's non-cooperation, the appeals were restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not cooperate with the lower authorities, leading to assessment under Section 144. The AO assessed total income at Rs. 6.50 Crores. The CIT(A) estimated profit at 2% of turnover and 10% of rent/service charges, determining total income at Rs. 1.68 Crores.

What were the issues?

Whether the income assessment methods adopted by the AO and CIT(A) were justified. The assessee's lack of cooperation before lower authorities and the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI M.BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
Hearing: 11/08/2021Pronounced: 16/08/2021

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

These cross appeals in for A.Y.2015-16 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)- 53/DCCC-5(2)/IT-423/2017-18 dated 27/11/2018 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 18/12/2017 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 5(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. At the outset, we find that assessment was framed in this case for A.Y.2015-16 u/s.144 of the Act as there was no co-operation from the side of the assessee. But we find that assessee had electronically filed its return of income for the A.Y.2015-16 on 30/09/2015 declaring total income of Rs.5,71,710/-. The ld. AO determined the total income of Rs.6,50,00,000/- by observing as under:-

“6. Considering the above facts of the assessee’s case and information available on record, the total income of the assessee is assessed at Rs.6,50,00,000/- being net of loses of current assessment year and of all the earlier years put together and the unexplained sources of shareholders funds, unsecured loans, creditors etc. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income is initiated in this case.”

2.1. This assessment was challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A), assessee had furnished only the audited financial statements and tax audit report through its Manager (Taxation) without any supporting documents. However, the ld. CIT(A)

348/Mum/2019 M/s. Cyber Infosystems & Technology Pvt. Ltd., accepted the fact that the ld. AO ought not to have determined the income of the assessee at Rs.6,50,00,000/- in the manner stated hereinabove and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, proceeded to estimate the profit of the assessee at 2% of turnover and 10% of rent and service charges. Accordingly, he directed the ld. AO to determine the total income of the assessee at Rs.1.68 Crores.

3.

Aggrieved by this order, both assessee as well as revenue are in appeal before us.

4.

We find that there was absolutely no representation made by the assessee before both the lower authorities. In our considered opinion, the manner of determination of total income adopted by the ld. AO as well as by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be accepted as they are without any basis. At the same time, the assessee’s non-co-operation before both the lower authorities cannot be ignored. Even before us, despite the notice being served on the assessee company, there was no appearance from the side of the assessee. However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore these appeals to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee is hereby directed to provide all the necessary details with supporting evidences in support of its return before the ld. AO and also furnish the necessary details as called for by the ld. AO from time to time in the set aside proceedings. The assessee is also directed to co-operate with the ld. AO for expeditious completion of the set aside assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of aforesaid observations.

348/Mum/2019 M/s. Cyber Infosystems & Technology Pvt. Ltd.,

5.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 16/08/2021 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →