Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in trading metals, filed a return which was later reopened by the AO based on a survey. The AO observed the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus purchases and made additions for undisclosed commission and deposits.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings but, for the sake of natural justice, granted one more opportunity to present the case before the CIT(A). The issues were remanded for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) given their non-compliance in prior proceedings.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1), 147, 148, 133, 143(3), 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
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) – 41, Mumbai passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short)
2010-11.
The assessee’s has raised the following grounds of appeal:
The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)] erred in upholding the order of the ld. Assessing Officer in adding Rs.41,26,872/- as undisclosed commission, not allowing claim of expenses & ignoring income already disclosed in the return of income without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in treating Deposit of Rs.2,40,72,871/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961. 3. The appeal is time barred by 83 days and the assessee has filed an Affidavit for condoning the said delay. After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered opinion
(A.Y. 2010-11) Hajaram Purohit vs. DCIT that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay in filing the present appeal and we, therefore, deem it fit to condone the delay. Delay condoned.
The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and is engaged in trading and stock of ferrous and non ferrous metals under the name of M/s. Rinku Steel Corporation and has filed his return of income on 29.09.2010, declaring total income at Rs.5,42,995/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 26.03.2012, pursuant to a survey action u/s. 133 of the Act dated 28.01.2011 on the business premises of the assessee. the learned Assessing Officer (ld. A.O. for short) observed that the assessee is one of the beneficiary of bogus purchases from various parties some of whom are accommodation entry providers alleged to be hawala operators as per the Sales Tax Department. The ld. A.O. then passed the assessment order dated 26.03.2013 u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, thereby determining the total income at Rs.2,87,42,740/- after making addition on undisclosed commission amounting to Rs.41,26,872/- and undisclosed deposits amounting to Rs.2,40,72,871/-
The assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, challenging the assessment order.
The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31.10.2014, 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.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A).
(A.Y. 2010-11) Hajaram Purohit vs. DCIT 8. 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 throughout the appellate proceeding.
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).
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 26.06.2024.