BOBBY YOGENDRA SHARMA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 3526/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 July 2024AY 2013-144 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal, in its present form, was not maintainable because Form 36 was not signed by the appellant. The Learned AR for the assessee acknowledged this oversight and sought permission to file a fresh appeal after duly signing Form 36. The Learned DR for the respondent had no objection to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in its current state, granting the assessee liberty to file a fresh appeal in accordance with the law. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or the set-off of losses, as the procedural defect rendered the appeal non-maintainable. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal with liberty to refile.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bobby Yogendra Sharma, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai Bench 'B', against the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee challenged the confirmation of additions amounting to Rs.12,08,94,098/- to his income. The procedural history indicates that the assessee's representative (AR) sought liberty to file a fresh appeal due to an unsigned Form 36, to which the Department's Representative (DR) had no objection. The Tribunal noted that the appeal in its current form was not maintainable due to the unsigned Form 36.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming additions of Rs.12,08,94,098/- to the appellant's income without considering that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not provide specific details of the transactions reported in the Annual Information Report, despite written requests, and that only the profit embedded in these transactions, not the entire value, could be considered income, even in a best judgment assessment. Assessee's Contentions: - The AO failed to provide specific details of transactions aggregating to Rs.12,08,94,098/- reported in the Annual Information Report. - The AO did not respond to specific written requests for these details. - Only the profit embedded in the transactions, not the entire transaction value, can be considered as income, and any best judgment assessment must have a nexus to available material. - Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in not directing the AO to allow set-off of a loss of Rs. 579,432/-, which was admitted and not disallowed by the AO. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue did not record specific contentions on the merits of the additions or the loss set-off. However, the DR pointed out that Form 36 was incomplete as it was not signed by the appellant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar

Pronounced: 29.07.2024

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 04.08.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2013-14.

Bobby Yogendra Sharma; A.Y. 2013-14 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal:

1. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs.12,08,94,098/- to the income of the Appellant without taking due cognizance, inter alia, of the following: a) The Assessing Officer had not provided the specific details of the transactions said to be entered into by the appellant and which aggregated to Rs.12,08,94,098/- which were stated to be reported in Annual Information Report; b) The Assessing Officer did not provide the above details despite specific written requests by the appellant; c) The Assessing Officer did not even bother to respond to Appellant’s request for the details; d) Not the entire value of transactions can be considered as income of the appellant but only the profit or income embedded in these transactions can, at most, be considered as income. Though, there is an element of guess work in a “best judgement assessment , it cannot be wild but should have nexus to the available material and the circumstances of each case. 2) Without prejudice to Ground 1 above & without admitting the additions so made, the learned CIT (A) erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to allow set off of loss of Rs. 579,432/- as per the Return of Income filed; especially when the said loss has been admitted and not disallowed by the Assessing Officer.”

We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld. DR on behalf of the respondent. At the very outset, the Ld. DR pointed out that the form no. 36 is incomplete as the same is not signed by the appellant. The Ld. AR on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant inadvertently Bobby Yogendra Sharma; A.Y. 2013-14 failed to sign the same. The Ld. AR has sought liberty to file fresh appeal after signing the form no.

36.

The Ld. DR has no objection to the same.

We have considered the submissions. Since the form no. 36 is not signed, therefore the appeal in its present form is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed with a liberty to file fresh as per law. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the above terms.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →