Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in trading gold and diamond jewellery, had its case reopened based on information that it obtained accommodation entries for bogus purchases. The assessment order included additions for bogus purchases and commission. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but failed to make an effective representation with submissions and documentary evidence, leading to the dismissal of its appeal.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made all required submissions before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to be diligent and cooperative.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for want of submissions and documentary evidence, and whether a fresh opportunity for adjudication is warranted.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
O R D E R
PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-54, Mumbai vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1066480362(1), dated 08.07.2024 passed against the assessment order by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Surat, u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 26.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11.
Jain Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., AY 2010-11 2. In ground no.2, assessee has contended that an ex-parte order has been passed by ld. CIT(A) for which notices were sent to its Authorised Representative and was under a bonafide belief that its matter is being duly attended for effective representation. Assessee also contends that the impugned order has been passed ex parte without examining material on record which was furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. In this respect, we note that assessee is engaged in the business trading of gold and diamond jewellery. It filed its return of income on 26.09.2010 reporting total income at Rs.97,580/-. Based on information available with the Income Tax Department, case of the assessee was re-opened whereby it was alleged that assessee had obtained accommodation entries which represents bogus purchases.
2.1 Assessee had duly explained its case along with filing an objection on the re-opening proceedings, however, the assessment was completed by making following two additions:- i) Addition on account of bogus purchases – Rs.1,17,42,587/- ii) Addition on account of commission – Rs.1,66,96,271/-
Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, it could not make its effective representation by filing required submissions along with documentary evidences in support of the claim made by it. Ld. CIT(A) thus observed that assessee has neither filed any submission in respect of the grounds raised before him nor filed any documentary evidences to explain the relief sought for and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
A paper book containing 66 pages is placed on record to substantiate the claim of relief sought by the assessee. In respect of the ground raised before us as stated above, we perused the order of the ld. CIT(A) to take note of the fact that it has been dismissed for want of submissions and documentary evidences from the assessee. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to make its representation for which an assurance was given that all the necessary submissions shall be made as and when called for. Ld. Sr. DR objected upon the plea so made. Considering the fact that assessee had made all the required submissions before the ld. Assessing Officer which were available on record and could have been considered by the ld. CIT(A), but not done so, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication on the grounds of the appeal taken at the first appellate stage. We also direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and make its submissions for expeditious and effective disposal of the appeal. It should not seek adjournments unless warranted by compelling reasons.
5 Since the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for meritorious adjudication by passing a speaking order in terms of our observations made hereinabove, we are not expressing any views on the merits of the case so as to limit the appellate procedure before the Ld. CIT(A). The observations herein made by us in remanding the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) will not impair or injure the case of the Revenue nor will it cause any prejudice to the defense/explanation of the assessee.
Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.