MR.RAJESH JEMATRAJ BAFNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including ledger accounts, bills, and bank statements. It restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining these evidences.
What were the facts?
The assessee's purchases from M/s. Daksha Enterprises were disallowed as non-genuine by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee claimed that ex-parte orders were passed without adequate opportunity.
What were the issues?
Whether the purchases were genuine and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HONBLEShri Rajesh Jematraj Bafna v. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(1) Dr. Bhadkamkar Marg, Mumbai -400007
O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 30, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 10.09.2018 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment and disallowing entire purchases of ₹.15,93,357/- made from M/s. Daksha Enterprises as non-genuine/bogus.
(A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Rajesh Jematraj Bafna 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) and Ld. Assessing Officer passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.
Before us, at the time of hearing, assessee filed petition along with additional evidences and prayed for admission of additional evidences. Ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished additional evidences in the form of Ledger Account, purchase Bills, bank statements, purchase register, sales register, item register detail etc., from M/s. Daksha Enterprises to prove that the assessee made purchases from M/s. Daksha Enterprises. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it has provided all these details to his Chartered Accountant who was engaged then but the said Chartered Accountant did not file these details either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that the assessment was also made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act as the details could not be furnished by the Chartered Accountant. Therefore, it is submitted that since these additional evidences go to the root of the matter the same may be admitted and remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination.
(A.Y: 2009-10) Shri Rajesh Jematraj Bafna 4. Ld. DR has no serious objections in sending back the matter to the file of the assessing officer.
We have heard the submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the additional evidences furnished before us, we are of the view that these evidences go to the root of the matter, accordingly the same are admitted. These evidences have to be examined by the Assessing Officer as these evidences were not available for verification. Thus, we restore all these additional evidences and the issue in hand to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee may file all these evidences before the assessing officer to substantiate its claim. Needless to say that the assessee shall cooperate with the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026