Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that upheld the assessment order. The assessee's grounds of appeal primarily relate to the validity of the jurisdiction for issuing a notice under Section 148 and the merit of an addition of Rs. 50,30,684/-.
Held
The tribunal noted that the ground challenging the validity of the reassessment notice was not pressed and was dismissed. Regarding the addition, the assessee argued that notices were not served properly. The tribunal, considering the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and restored the matter back for deciding the issue of disallowance.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment proceedings were valid and whether the addition made on merit was justified.
Sections Cited
148, 147, 151A, 69A, 115BBE, 271AAC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order passed by AO by issuing notice dated 22nd June,2021 under s.148 read with by AO by issuing notice dated 22nd June,2021 under s.148 read with by AO by issuing notice dated 22nd June,2021 under s.148 read with s.147 of the Act without realizing that the jurisdiction for issuing notice s.147 of the Act without realizing that the jurisdiction for issuing notice s.147 of the Act without realizing that the jurisdiction for issuing notice under s.148 had been moved to Faceless Assessment/Appeal under under s.148 had been moved to Faceless Assessment/Appeal under under s.148 had been moved to Faceless Assessment/Appeal under s.151A . Relief claimed: Relief claimed: The impugned assessment declared null and void. d assessment declared null and void.
The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition 2. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition 2. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.50,36,684/ Rs.50,36,684/- by passing the impugned Order dated 26th July,2024. by passing the impugned Order dated 26th July,2024. Relief claimed: Relief claimed: The impugned order be declared null and void. The impugned order be declared null and void.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming application of s.69A of the Act to ed CIT(A) erred in confirming application of s.69A of the Act to ed CIT(A) erred in confirming application of s.69A of the Act to the facts of the case. of the case. Relief claimed: Relief claimed: The impugned order be declared null and void. The impugned order be declared null and void. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming application 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming application 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming application of s.115BBE of the Act. of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to Ground No.4, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts ut prejudice to Ground No.4, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts ut prejudice to Ground No.4, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in proposing penalty under s.271AAC of the Act proposing penalty under s.271AAC of the Act 2. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. In the grounds raised, the the relevant materials on record. In the grounds raised, the the relevant materials on record. In the grounds raised, the assessee has challenged challenged validity of the jurisdiction in validity of the jurisdiction in issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) as well as tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) as well as disputed the addition disputed the addition of Rs.50,30,684/- on merit in terms of section on merit in terms of section 69A of the Act. As far as ground challenging validity of the 69A of the Act. As far as ground challenging validity of 69A of the Act. As far as ground challenging validity of reassessment is concerned reassessment is concerned, same was not pressed before us and not pressed before us and therefore, same is dismissed as infructuous. As far as ground dismissed as infructuous. As far as ground onb dismissed as infructuous. As far as ground merit of the addition merit of the addition of Rs.50,30,684/- is concerned, the Ld. is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee could not counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee could not counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee could not comply to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons comply to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons comply to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons that notices could not be served upon the assessee. The Ld. counsel notices could not be served upon the assessee. The Ld. counsel notices could not be served upon the assessee. The Ld. counsel for the assessee given an undertaking on behalf of the assessee that for the assessee given an undertaking on behalf of the assessee for the assessee given an undertaking on behalf of the assessee if matter is restored back to the lower authorities if matter is restored back to the lower authorities, the assessee shall , the assessee shall file all the information and produce the documents which would be file all the information and produce the documents which would be file all the information and produce the documents which would be called called for for and and co co-operate operate with with the the appellate appellate proceedings/assessment proceedings. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has proceedings/assessment proceedings. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has proceedings/assessment proceedings. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer in absence of any upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer in absence of any upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer in absence of any documentary evidence filed on behalf of the assessee, we feel it ocumentary evidence filed on behalf of the assessee, we feel it ocumentary evidence filed on behalf of the assessee, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding for deciding the issue in dispute of disallowance the issue in dispute of disallowance of Rs.50,36,685/- in terms of section 69A of the Act in terms of section 69A of the Act after taking in terms of section 69A of the Act into consideration submission and explanation of the assessee. into consideration submission and explanation of the assessee. into consideration submission and explanation of the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee relat the grounds of appeal of the assessee related to the merit of ed to the merit of the addition are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee i In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for s partly allowed for statistical purposes.