HIMANSHU DILIP JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(5), MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee challenged an ex parte order from the CIT(A) regarding the assessment year 2009-10. The AO had reopened the assessment under Section 147 and made an addition of Rs. 81,47,266/- for alleged bogus purchases.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had challenged the additions before the CIT(A) but failed to appear or submit any written arguments, leading to the ex parte order. The Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid, and whether the disallowance of purchases was justified. The primary issue on appeal became the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
147, 143(1), 143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
ITA No. 129/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Himanshu Dilip Jain Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5) 173, Kika Street, Gulal Wadi, Room No. 228, Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400 004 Vs. Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007
PAN/GIR No. AGHPJ 1641 F (Assessee) : (Respondent) : Shri Anant Kanse Assessee by Respondent by : Shri P D Chougule Date of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the ex parte 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 Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2009-10.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:
That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the reopening proceedings initiated by the ld. AO u/s. 147 is bad in law and liable to be quashed. a. The ld.AO erred in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 solely on the basis of information received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai without any application of mind and as such, the reopening is bad in law and liable to be quashed. b. The ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 based on suspicion and surmises without any tangible material showing escapement if income and as such, the reopening is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of A.O. in disallowing a sum of Rs.81,47,266/-, on account of alleged bogus purchases.
2 ITA No. 129/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10) Himanshu Dilip Jain vs. ITO 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in all
kinds of reseller in ferrous and non ferrous metal and had filed his return of income for
the year under consideration on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs.19,86,962/-
which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act.
The ld. Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3)
r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 14.03.2015, thereby determining the total income at
Rs.1,01,34,228/-.
The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the
assessment order.
The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14.03.2015, upheld the order of the ld.A.O. for
the reason that inspite of several opportunity the assessee has failed to substantiate his
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 first appellate authority but has been non compliant by not responding to the
notices nor filed any written submission.
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 his case before the ld. CIT(A).
3 ITA No. 129/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10) Himanshu Dilip Jain vs. ITO 9. 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 his 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 his side.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.07.2024
Sd/- Sd/-
(B R Baskaran) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 31.07.2024 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai
