BHAIRAVI KAUSHIK KAMDAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 42(1)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the ground of reopening being bad in law was not raised before the Ld. Commissioner. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, to ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,73,00,734/- as unexplained credit. The Assessee challenged the reopening and the addition before the Ld. Commissioner, but failed to make compliance despite multiple opportunities. The appeal was dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of the case by the Assessing Officer was bad in law, and whether the Ld. Commissioner rightly dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.2,267 citing38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 06.08.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 30.05.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act has made the addition of Rs.3,73,00,734/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the reopening of the case u/s 147/148 of the Act as well as addition on merits before the Ld. Commissioner, who though afforded 03 opportunities to the Assessee however, the Assessee except seeking adjournment on two occasions made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances and in the absence of any written submissions/evidence, the Ld. Commissioner while following the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as reported 38 ITD 320 (Del) decided the appeal of the Assessee vide impugned order as ex-parte and consequently dismissed the same for non-prosecution.
The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us and supported the grounds of appeal raised in appeal.
On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee.
We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Advocate Shri Dharan Gandhi has claimed that reopening of the instant case by the AO is bad in law and therefore Assessment order itself is liable to be dismissed. We observe that this ground has not been raised before the Ld. Commissioner and even otherwise the Ld. Commissioner, in the absence of relevant evidence/submissions, which the Assessee has failed to file, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and without going into the merits of the case and therefore it would be appropriate to grant the liberty to the Assessee for raising all aspects/grounds concerning the issues involved before the Ld. Commissioner itself. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, for just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee as well as by considering the documents filed by the Assessee vide paper book dated 21.10.2024 before us on 08.10.2024. The Assessee is directed to file the copy of the same paper book before the Ld. Commissioner as well, who will consider the same for the just decision of the case. Liberty is granted to the Assessee to raise any issue on merit and legal angles including reopening of the instant case is bad in law as raised before us. We clarify that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes with liberty as mentioned in para 6 of this order.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2024.
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026