M/S SPECIAL STEELS & ALLOYS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(4) , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1680/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 July 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (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 assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the CIT(A) during appellate proceedings, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal noted a change in the assessee's email ID, which might have caused communication issues. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, which was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, information was received regarding bogus purchases from accommodation entry providers. The case was reopened u/s 147, and the Assessing Officer treated the purchases as bogus and added them to the total income.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merit due to potential communication issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.07.2024Pronounced: 11.07.2024

O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals of the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 are directed against different orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. Since common issue and identical facts involved in these appeals therefore these people are adjudicated together by this common order.

ITA 1680/Mum/2024

2.

Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,81,890/- was filed on 26.09.2009. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently information was received from the DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai that assessee has “i. Navkar Impex ii. Gravity Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd.”

3.

On the basis of information, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 25.02.2014. During the course of assessment proceeding neither the assessee has filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act nor made any compliance during the course of assessment proceedings before the assessing officer. Therefore, the assessing officer has treated the whole amount of purchases of Rs. 28,08,416/- made from the accommodation entry provider as bogus purchases and added to the total income of the assessee.

4.

The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution since has not made any compliance to the notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings.

5.

Heard the ld. DR and perused the material on record. The assessing officer has completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by treating the whole amount of purchases made from the alleged two accommodation entry providing parties as non- genuine and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating on merit as the assessee has failed to make any compliance before the ld. CIT(A). In the order of the ld. CIT(A) no information has been provided relating to servicing of different

3 & 1681/Mum/2024 M/s. Special Steel & Alloys A.Y. 2009-10 notices issued during the course of appellate proceedings by the ld. CIT(A). We have perused the copy of Form No. 35 filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and found that in Form No. 35, assessee has given e-mail address as umeshkjain29@gmail.com. However, we find that in Form No. 36 filed before us, the assessee has given new e-mail ID as vikasfgl@rediffmail.com. It appears that changed in the e-mail ID will be the possible reasons for not making compliance before the First Appellate Authority. Since in the case of the assessee neither the CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee on merit nor the assessee has made compliance during the course of appellate proceedings, therefore, we consider it appropriate to restore this case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding on merit as contemplate u/s 250(6) of the Act after providing more opportunity to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is requested to take on record the e-mail ID provided by the assessee in Form No. 36 filed before us for the purpose of making communication relating to appellate proceedings. The assessee is directed to make compliance without any failure this time before the ld. CIT(A) therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA 1681/Mum/2024

6.

Similar to the facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the penalty levied by the assessing officer of Rs. 7,84,843/- as the assessee has not made any compliance to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). On the same reason as discussed supra while adjudicating the appeal of the assessee vide ITA 1680/Mum/2024 this appeal is also 4 & 1681/Mum/2024 M/s. Special Steel & Alloys A.Y. 2009-10 restored to the file of ld. CIT(AJ) for deciding afresh on merit after providing more opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure. Therefore, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.07.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →