Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH,
Date of Hearing 09.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 17.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts & in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT (A) erred in passing an ex parte order and confirming the addition made by the Id. Assessing Officer and the reasons assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provisions of Income Tax and rules made thereunder
2. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine without consideration of the subject issues on merit. Therefore, the appeal may be restored to the Hon’ble CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
P a g e | Sriman Stocks Management Pvt. Ld. Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1) 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in upholding validity of issuing notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble (ITA) erred in upholding the addition made by the Ld AO of Rs. 4,30,000/- on account of unsecured loan taken by the assessee in the impugned year from M/s. Lunkad Textiles Pvt Ltd as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and Rules made there under.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty initiated by the Ld. AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the provision of Income Tax Act and rules made there under.
Your Appellant crave, leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”
The appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT was time barred by 1 day. The ld. Counsel submitted that the delay was happened because of the last date of filing was being Sunday. Considering the submission of the assessee the delay in filing the appeal by 1 day is condoned.
Fact in brief is that return of income declaring nil income was filed on 26.12.2015. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the DDIT(Investigation) Unit 7(4), Mumbai that assessee has obtained accommodation entries from the bogus entities controlled and operated by Shri Vipul Bhatt, the assessing officer reopened the case by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 11.04.2014. On verification of the information received the assessing officer observed that assessee has taken accommodation entry of loan amount of Rs.4,30,000/- from M/s Lunkad Textiles Pvt. Ltd. during the year under consideration. The AO has stated that merely producing bank account and claiming that payment were made through banking channel was not enough to prove P a g e | Sriman Stocks Management Pvt. Ld. Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1) the genuineness of the said transaction, therefore, the assessing officer treated the same as bogus accommodation entry and added the same to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.
4. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for not making any compliance to the number of notices of hearing issued during the course of appellate proceedings.
5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessing officer has completed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by making addition of Rs.4,30,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act on account of not proving genuineness of the loan transaction as discussed supra in this order. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee failed to make compliance to the notices of hearing issued at the time of appellate proceedings before the First Appellate Authority without adjudicating on merit. Before us the ld. Counsel submitted that the counsel of the assessee could not compliance during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) since the ld. counsel was not available and he was at his native place because of some urgent personal affairs. After taking into consideration the material available on record we find that neither the ld. CIT(A) has decied the appeal of the assessee on merit after taking into consideration the material placed in the assessment record nor the assessee has made compliance during the course of appellate proceedings. We consider that Section 250(6) of the Act contemplate that ld. CIT(A) would determine point in dispute and therefor record reason on such point in support of his conclusion. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the case on merit after considering the material placed on record as contemplated in the provision of Sec.