T J JEWELLERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 18(3)(4), MUMBAI
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.3,71,584/- on account of sale transactions. The Assessee challenged this addition and the reopening of the case. However, the Assessee failed to comply with various notices and provide substantive documents.
Held
The Tribunal noted the Assessee's non-compliance and the consequent affirmation of the addition and reopening by the lower authorities. Despite this, considering the facts and for substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the case.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the AO and the reopening of the case were justified, and whether the Assessee's non-compliance warrants leniency.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order
dated 24.11.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless
Appeal Center (NFAC)/ the Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) (in short “Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner”) for the A.Y.
2013-14.
2 ITA No.318/M/2024 M/s. T.J. Jewellers
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated
28.12.2018 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
‘the Act’) has made the addition of Rs.3,71,584/- being 16.6% of the sale
transactions of Rs.22,27,723/-. The Assessee, being aggrieved,
challenged the said addition as well as reopening of the case u/s 147/148
of the Act before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner, however, in spite of
sending various notice, the Assessee made no compliance and therefore
in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner not
only affirmed the reopening of the case u/s 147 of the Act but also
affirmed the addition for not submitting any substantive documents by
the Assessee qua its claim. Resultantly due to fault of the Assessee, the
issue involved qua addition remained to be adjudicated in its right
perspective and proper manner and therefore, the Assessee do not
deserve any leniency. However, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case in totality for the just decision of the case and
substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file
of the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by
affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its case.
We clarify that in case of further default the Assessee shall not be entitled
for any leniency. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld.
Addl./Joint Commissioner accordingly.
3 ITA No.318/M/2024 M/s. T.J. Jewellers
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.08.2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
