NARENDRA SOHANRAJJI SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-20(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3274/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 January 2024AY 2011-20124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices. However, the assessee claimed notices were sent to an incorrect email address, supported by a screenshot. The Tribunal found merit in this claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and the case was reopened based on information about accommodation entries for unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer added the unsecured loan amount as income, treating it as a hawala transaction, after the assessee failed to prove its genuineness.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order was valid when notices were allegedly sent to an incorrect email address, and if the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

Hearing: 27.12.2023Pronounced: 01.01.2024

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, dated 21.07.2023 for A.Y. 2011-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. Hence it is against the provision of IT Act.

1.

2. Hence impugned order dated 31 Nov 2018 is b ad in law liable to be upheld and or set aside in to without remand The known issue of No tice u/s 143(2) of the act cannot be cured by reasoning to deeming fiction of section 292BB of the Act on the ground that the assesse has cooperated in the assessment proceeding as held in case Sanjeev Agrawal vs DCIT 70 taxman com 265 Chandigarh Tribunal.

3. Addition of 100 PERCENT purchases of Rs.37,76,235 is arbitrary tribe vindictive with bias mind based on assumption and presumption P a g e | 2 Narendra Sohanrajji Shah Vs. ITO 20(2)(4) conjectures and surmises as on defects were found in the details submitted by me and identification of said vendors were registered under the M VAT Act 2002 This registered declares as the time pf purchases the same may be deleted or may be reduced to token amount considering the facts of the case. 4. I craves the liberty to add to amend to change and to delete any grounds of appeal on or before hearing of the appeal.”

2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,98,035/- was filed on 24.09.2011. The case was reopened by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 29.03.2018 on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai that assessee had received accommodation entries of unsecured loan from hawala entry provider. The AO stated that adequate opportunities were granted to the assessee, however, the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the loan transactions. Consequently, the assessing officer has added the amount of unsecured loan obtained by the assessee by treating the same as hawala transaction of Rs.37,76,235/- u/s 69C to the total income that assessee.

3.

The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that assessee has not made any compliance to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings before us. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not issued notices for hearing to the correct e-mail address provided by the assessee. In support of his contention that notices of hearing were issued at the incorrect e-mail id the ld. Counsel submitted a copy of screenshot taken by the assessee from the Income tax portal. Showing notice issued on wrong e-mailed. Because of aforesaid anomaly the ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee be given another opportunity at the level of CIT(A) for deciding the case on merit.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →