RICHMOND REALTORS,BHANDUP, MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4175/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHARI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

While the assessee did not deserve leniency due to non-compliance, the Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner could not decide the case properly in the absence of the assessee's submissions. Therefore, for substantial justice, the case is remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order of the NFAC which dismissed their appeal ex-parte. The NFAC had affirmed additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest expenses, as the assessee failed to provide submissions/documents despite opportunities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with the notices and failed to provide reasons for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be remanded for fresh consideration due to the inability of the Ld. Commissioner to adjudicate the issues properly in the absence of assessee's submissions and documents, despite the assessee's non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SMT. RENU JAUHARI

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh I. Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Kumar, D.R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.09.2023, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO), vide assessment order dated 19.04.2021 under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, made the additions of Rs.42,00,000/- and Rs.57,375/- respectively on account of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest expenses under section 68 of the Act, against which the assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. commissioner who though afforded various opportunities to the assessee by issuing notices for fixing the case for hearings, however, the assessee made no compliance and not filed any submissions/documents in support of its claim. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner in the absence of submissions/documents decided the appeal of the assessee as ex-parte and affirmed the aforesaid additions by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

3.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee neither filed any submissions/documents before the Ld. Commissioner nor demonstrated the reason for non- compliance with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner and therefore the Assessee does not deserve any leniency, however, considering the other aspect of the case, as in the absence of relevant submissions/documents which the assessee has failed to file, the Ld. Commissioner was unable to decide the issues involved in its right perspective and proper manner, hence for the just decision of the case and for the ends of substantial justice, we are remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee, to substantiate its claim.

4.

We also direct the assessee to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and file the relevant submissions/documents which would be essential/required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the case. We clarify that in case of further default the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

5.

Thus, the case is remanded accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →