ANITA PAWAN PODDAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE PAWAN HIRALAL PODDAR ,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD-27(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 6212/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anita Pawan Poddar, the legal heir of the late Pawan Hiralal Poddar, who appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi. The appeals were related to the assessment year 2011-12, where the assessee's income was reassessed following the receipt of information about alleged bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks. The Assessing Officer conducted a best judgment assessment under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance by the assessee, resulting in a significant increase in the declared income. The first appellate authority upheld this assessment, leading to the current appeals. The Tribunal decided to remand the case for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25075 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT GANDHI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 148; 144; 271(1)(c); 68; 274

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM ITA No.6212 & 6216/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Anita Pawan Poddar Legal heir of late Pawan Hiralal Poddar 125-3501, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai – 400075. Vs. ITO, Ward 27(2)(5) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 400020. PAN/GIR No. AKLPP0348R (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri. Bharat Gandhi Respondent by : Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR) Date of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘ld. CIT(A)’ for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12. 2. The assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order along with other grounds of appeal. The assessee has also challenged the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) in ITA No. 6216/Mum/2024. 3. As the facts are identical, we hereby pass the consolidated order by taking ITA No. 6212/Mum/2024 as a lead case. ITA No. 6212 & 6216/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) Anita Pawan Poddar Legal heir of late Pawan Hiralal Poddar 2 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs. 12,37,220/-. The assessee’s case was reopened, vide notice u/s. 148 dated 28.03.2018, for the reason that the ld. AO received information from ADIT(Investigation), Unit-8(2), Mumbai that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry by way of bogus Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 60,58,636/- out of investment made in alleged penny stock viz. ‘SVC Resources Ltd.’. The ld. AO then passed the assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, being the best judgment assessment for the reason that the assessee has not complied with the notice, thereby determining total income at Rs. 62,18,636/- after making addition u/s. 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 60,58,636/-. The ld. AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 274 r.w. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 29.09.2024 upheld the addition made by the ld. AO vide an ex-parte order on the ground that the assessee has also failed to comply with the proceeding before the first appellate authority. 6. Further aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee contended that due to the demise of the assessee, the legal heir of the assessee was unable to attend the proceedings before the lower authorities. The ld. AR further stated that the assessee ITA No. 6212 & 6216/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) Anita Pawan Poddar Legal heir of late Pawan Hiralal Poddar 3 may be given one more opportunity to present the case before the ld. AO by filing the relevant documentary evidences in support of the assessee’s claim. 8. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) vehemently opposed to remanding the issue back to the ld. AO for the reason that the assessee has been non- compliant even before the first appellate authority. 9. In the above factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present her case before the ld. AO by adhering to the principles of natural justice and also in the interest of justice. We therefore remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. AO and direct the assessee to cooperate with the proceeding without any undue delay on her side. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 6216/Mum/2024 11. As we have remanded the issue of addition made by the ld. AO, the consequent penalty order also become infructuous, where the ld. AO is at liberty to levy the penalty if and when required as per the de novo assessment order. 12. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.01.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 08.01.2025 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy of the Order forwarded to: ITA No. 6212 & 6216/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) Anita Pawan Poddar Legal heir of late Pawan Hiralal Poddar 4 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "