SAREMAL NIHALCHAND JAIN,WORLI, MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 21(3)(2), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance throughout the proceedings. Considering the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee's request for adjournment due to pending consolidation, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee individual did not file his income return. The case was reopened based on information that the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer made additions for cash deposits and bogus loss from share sale. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, deleting the addition for bogus loss but upholding the addition for cash deposit.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer are justified, and if the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer considering the pending appeal by the Revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12.
As none appeared for the assessee, we hereby dispose of this appeal by hearing the learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) and by perusing the materials available on record.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. The assessee’s case was reopened vide notice dated 30.03.2018 based on the information received from DGIT(Inv) that the assessee has been one of the beneficiary of the bogus entries by way of long term capital M/s. Swarna Sarita Gems Ltd., which is alleged to be a shell company. The assessee was non compliant before the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) who then proceeded to pass the assessment order dated 01.12.2018 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act being the best assessment judgment, thereby determining total income at Rs.28,70,573/- after making an addition of Rs.24,89,700/- towards cash deposit in the savings bank account of the assessee maintained with the South Indian Bank Ltd. and Rs.3,80,873/- as bogus loss from sale of shares u/s. 69A of the Act.
Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order.
The ld. CIT(A) vide an ex parte order dated 12.02.2024, had partly allowed the 5. appeal filed by the assessee, deleting the alleged bogus loss of Rs.3,80,873/- from sale of shares and upheld the addition of Rs.24,89,700/- towards the cash deposit made in the assessee’s savings bank account.
Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the additions made by the ld. A.O. before the first appellate authority, but has been non compliant throughout the appellate proceeding.
The ld. DR for the Revenue contended that the assessee has been habitually non compliant before the lower authorities, but the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition on bogus loss of Rs.3,80,873/- inspite of the assessee having failed to furnish books of relied on the order of the ld. A.O. and prayed that the additions be upheld.
In view of the above facts, it is observed that the assessee vide his letter dated 29.10.2024, requesting for adjournment has specified that the Revenue has filed an appeal, challenging the ld. CIT(A)’s order in before the ‘J’ Bench. Pertinently, nothing has been brought to our knowledge as to whether an application for consolidation has been filed by either parties. In the absence of the same, we deem it fit to extend one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the ld. A.O. We, therefore, direct that the assessee to cooperate with the proceeding before the ld. A.O. without any undue delay on his side and the ld. A.O. shall decide the issue in hand on the merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal filed by 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 Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
