ASHOK GHELABHAI PATEL,NALLASOPARA (EAST) vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2959/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 October 2024AY 2018-2019Bench: MS. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce necessary details before the AO and CIT(A). However, it was also observed that the assessee would not gain by not producing these documents. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give an opportunity to the assessee to present the details.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC for AY 2018-19. The assessee had filed his return admitting income of Rs.9,14,570/-. The AO disallowed expenses of Rs. 1,85,43,071/- (commission), Rs. 10,08,000/- (salary), and Rs. 2,100/- (GST penalty) due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of expenses for lack of evidence was justified, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to furnish the required details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 40a(ia),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: MS. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Munoyat
For Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Hearing: 03/10/2024Pronounced: 09/10/2024

The assessee filed this appeal against order dated 27/03/2024 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „Ld.CIT(A)‟] for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessee has also filed Stay Application, seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs.94,54,898/-.

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under: The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 12/10/2018, admitting total income of Rs.9,14,570/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny to verify “low income compared to large commission receipts”. The Ld.AO issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act.

2.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO called for evidences of large commission of Rs. 1,85,43,071/-, and salary of Rs.10,08,000/- debited to P&L A/c. The assessee failed to furnish any evidences regarding these expenditures. The Ld.AO noted that sum of Rs.2,100/- was debited as GST Penalty also, was also not explained by the assessee. The Ld.AO disallowed all the three expenses passed the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 10/06/2021, assessing the total income at Rs. 2,04,64,741/- Aggrieved by the additions, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

2.2. During the course of appellate proceedings assessee could not submit details/evidences in support of his claim. The Ld.CIT(A) noted the written submissions regarding the applicability of Section 40a(ia) the Act. The commission expenditure salary expenditure of Rs. 10,08,000/- and disallowance of GST penalty of Rs. 2,100/- claimed by the assessee was disallowed u/s.37 of the Act, since the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in support. The Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions so made by the Ld.AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

3.

The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.AO erred by finalizing the assessment without issuing a draft assessment order, which is a mandatory requirement u/s. 144B of the Act. It was also submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in disallowing the expenses of Rs. 10,08,000/- towards salary and Rs. 1,85,43,071/- towards commission, u/s. 37(1) of the Act, without properly appreciating the evidence and submissions provided, which justified that they were incurred wholly and 3.1. By consolidating all the grounds, the Ld.AR submitted that, given an opportunity, the assessee will produce all such details before the authorities below diligently in support if his claim.

4.

Per contra, the Ld.DR placed heavy reliance on the orders of the authorities below, and submitted that sufficient opportunity has already been given by the authorities, but the assessee failed to avail the same. Hence, he opposed the grant of further opportunity to the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side.

5.

It could be seen from the orders of the authorities that the assessee failed to produce the details before the AO and the Ld.CIT(A), which resulted in passing the impugned order. It is a fact that the assessee does not stand to gain by not producing such documents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion S.A.No. 69/Mum/2024 that giving an opportunity to the assessee would meet the ends of justice. 5.1. With this view, we remand the issue to the file of the Ld.AO for fresh examination, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also direct the assessee to fully co-operate with the Ld.AO and produce the relevant material to dispose of the matter, without seeking any further adjournments. Accordingly, the grounds raised

by assessee are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. SA No. 69/Mum/2024

6. Since we restored the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Ld.AO for fresh examination, on merits, the Stay Application becomes infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →