HEMRAJ KANARAM CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,19(1)(5), MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-30, Mumbai erred in enhancing the addition to Rs.17,89,397/- from Rs.2,23,675/- being Rs.17,89,397/- as 100% non-genuine purchases without appreciating the law, facts and circumstances of the case. The provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and regard being had to facts of the case no such addition should have been made. Reasons assigned by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 are wrong and unlawful to justify the addition of Rs.17,89,397/-. The same to be deleted.

2. The order made under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the learned Assessing Officer is bad-in-law, ultra virus and without appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective and is liable to be annulled..”

3. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Department and has gone through the case carefully. We find that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy in absence of the assessee and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, is not liable to be sustained in the interest of justice. A proper and reasonable opportunity is required to be given to the assessee before the deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law.

(1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC)