M/S. DAZZLE GOLD LLP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee, M/s Dazzle Gold LLP, filed its return for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 57,44,671/- on account of alleged bogus cash sales during demonetization. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-appearance.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. The appellate provisions require the CIT(A) to decide on the merits even in the absence of the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without deciding on merits, and whether the addition made by the AO on account of cash sales was valid.
Sections Cited
143(3), 145(3), 115BBE, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM:
ITA No. 3806/Mum/2023, is filed by Dazzle Gold LLP Mumbai (assessee /appellant) for A.Y. 2017-18, against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 29th August, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 18th December, 2019, by the Asst.
Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal.
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - NFAC, hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A), has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant ex-parte without considering the relevant facts of the case which were available on the records.
The CIT(A) has erred in not considering the facts and passing a speaking order in relation to the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and giving due consideration to the facts of the case. The appellant respectfully submits that the order of the CIT(A) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be set-a-side.
Without prejudice to Ground 1 above, the assessing officer has erred in rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant merely on conjectures and suspicions and without pointing out any defect in the same. The CIT (A) has erred in confirming this action of the assessing officer by way of dismissing the appeal of the appellant without even adjudicating the issue raised.
Without prejudice to any of the above grounds, on the facts of the case, the assessing officer has erred in making
Grievance of the assessee is that assessing officer has erred in making an addition in relation to the sales, which had already been offered to tax by the appellant. The impugned addition results in double addition in relation to the same income and therefore, the same deserves to be deleted.
The assessee is aggrieved by the above order stating that the appellate order passed ex-parte, without considering the relevant facts of the case, which are available on records and further in violation of principle of natural justice. On other grounds it contested the addition on merit in making an addition of ₹57,44,671/-.
The facts of the case shows that assessee is a partnership firm formed as LLP, filed its return of income on 23rd October, 2017, at a total income of ₹4,75,200/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. As per its details, it was found that the assessee has deposited ₹3,25,24,000/- in its bank account with Kalupur Commercial co-operative Bank Limited having bank account no. 0016. The learned
The learned Departmental Representative submitted that despite notices sent by the learned CIT (A), the assessee failed to respond and therefore, the appeal of the assessee is correctly dismissed.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the learned Departmental Representative; however, we find that in this case, the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the solitary ground of non-appearance. He did not dispose off the appeal on the merits of the case. We find that according to provisions of Section 250 of the Act, the learned CIT (A) in accordance with the Provisions of
All other grounds remains unadjudicated in absence of the order of the learned CIT (A) on merits of the case.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed 012. for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30.05. 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated: 30.05. 2024 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to:
Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
