Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed by the assessee challenging the order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment years 2011-12 and 2010-11. The assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family engaged in trading. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and the Assessing Officer made additions, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had challenged the additions made by the AO before the first appellate authority but was non-compliant. However, considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's order without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, and whether the disallowance of purchases was justified. The Tribunal also considered the validity of the reopening of assessment under Section 147.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 143(1), 148, 143(2), 142(1), 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These appeals have 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 Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12 and 2010-11.
As the facts in both the appeals are common, we hereby take as a lead case.
(A.Y. 2011-12) 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. 1. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned Assessing Officer without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing, thereby, violating principles of natural justice.
2. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance @ 30 per cent being Rs.71,07,635/- out of the total purchases of Rs.2,36,92,115/- by holding it to be non – genuine.
& 5273/Mum/2024 (A.Ys.2011-12 & 2010-11) HV Goradia HUF vs. ITO 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act which is bad in law.
The brief facts are that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family engaged in the business of trading and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.08.2011, declaring total income of Rs.2,49,940/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 21.03.2015. The notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee.
The ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) then passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 22.01.2016, thereby determining the total income at Rs.73,57,580/-.
The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order.
The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 08.08.2024, upheld the order of the ld.A.O. for the reason that inspite of several opportunity the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim and has been non compliant throughout the appellate proceedings.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions 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 learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee has got a good case on the merits and prayed that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A).
The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short) vehemently opposed to setting aside the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee was given several opportunity by the ld. CIT(A) which was not availed by the assessee.
On the above factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present its case before the first appellate authority by adhering to the principles of natural justice. We, therefore, remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to comply with the proceedings without any undue delay on its side. (A.Y. 2010-11) 13. The findings in (A.Y. 2011-12) will apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.11.2024