AVANTI RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1 (2), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3541/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 December 2019AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. This was done in the interest of natural justice, to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution without adjudication of the grounds raised. The assessee's counsel stated they were not interested in pursuing the appeal, but the ITAT noted the CIT(A) had not discussed the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds on merits. Whether the addition of commission on purchase and sales was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, AR
Hearing: 10.12.2019Pronounced: 12.12.2019

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “A” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री एम बालगणेश, लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI M BALAGANESH, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) Avanti Resources Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax officer 413, Autumn Gurve, Ward 1(2), Indore Lokhandwala Complex, Opp Lokhandwala Foundation बनाम/ School, Akurli Road, Vs. Kandivali (E), Mumbai- 400 101 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AACCA9146E अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah, AR प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri Michael Jerald, DR ुिवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 10.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement : 12.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-1, Indore [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. IT-47/2016-17/163 vide dated 16.02.2018. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2013- 14 vide order dated 14.03.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2 | P a g e Avanti Resources P. ltd.

2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of commission on purchase of sales at ₹3,45,96,246/- being commission at the rate of 1% on purchase and sales. For this assessee has raised the following two effective grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) in confirming above additions even though the PAN of the Appellant lies in Mumbai.

2.

In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned AO erred in adding ₹34596246/- by way of alleged commission @1% on purchase and sales both by overlooking the details filed and only on the basis of presumption and surmises.

3.

In the facts and the circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned AO erred in levying interest under section 234B and C and also initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c).”

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →