T J JEWELLERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 18(3)(4), MUMBAI

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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.