BHAGYAVANTI MAHAVIR JAIN,MUMBAI V. ITO -WD 1(5), MUMBAI

ITA 1368/MUM/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ms. Bhagyavanti Mahavir Jain against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which affirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions were made on account of share transactions involving M/s. Essar India Ltd. and M/s. Surbhi Chemicals India Ltd., based on various irregularities noted by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not consider the relevant documents submitted by the Assessee, leading to a breach of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper consideration of all documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470673 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B. LAXMI KANT
• Assessee Lawyers: DINKLE HARIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1368/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ms. Bhagyavanti Mahavir Jain, 115, Makhecha Mansion, Station Road, Thane, Mumbai Maharashtra- 400 602 PAN: ACAPJ2645J Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5) Room No.14, B Wing, Ashar I.T Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400 604 Maharashtra (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Dinkle Haria, A.R. Revenue by : Shri B. Laxmi Kant, Sr. A.R. Date of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 05.04.2022, impugned herein, passed by the 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. 2014-15. ITA No.1368/M/2022 Ms. Bhagyavanti Mahavir Jain 2 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act has made the additions of Rs.29,62,250/- & Rs.11,46,000/- (in total Rs.41,08,250/-) respectively on account of share transactions qua M/s. Essar India Ltd. and M/s. Surbhi Chemicals India Ltd. mainly on the following reasons: (i) the basis of the investigation carried out by Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata and (ii) purchase of shares was purchased from off market and (iii) payment was made in cash and (iv) there is no bank entry to corroborate the payment and (v) the investment qua shares of M/s. Essar India Ltd. is not reflecting in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2012. (vi) the shares were dematerialized after a gap of more than 11 months. (vii) the Assessee could not offer any explanation as to how she came in contact with a Chennai based broker and (viii) the Assessee was not aware about the companies in which she has made the transactions and (ix) the Assessee has also failed to file the relevant documents in support of her claim. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner who by impugned order affirmed the aforesaid additions more or less on the same reasoning as observed by the AO. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel/Advocate Ms. Dinkle Haria on behalf of the Assessee though argued on the merits of the case, however, at last in order to cut short ITA No.1368/M/2022 Ms. Bhagyavanti Mahavir Jain 3 the litigation respectfully submitted that though the Assessee has submitted various relevant documents as mentioned at Sl. No.4 in the paper book as filed before the Bench, however, the Ld. Commissioner did not consider the same, which resulted into non-appreciation of the documents relevant for adjudication of the issue, breach of the principle of natural justice and denial of opportunity of being heard. 4. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee on the merits of the case, but not on this particular fact qua non- consideration of documents, as demonstrated by Ld. Counsel. 5. Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record, we observe that admittedly no such document as filed by the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner, has either been considered or mentioned in the impugned by the Ld. Commissioner. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, as the documents in our considered view are essential for adjudication of the issues involved and therefore for the just decision of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by considering the documents filed by the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner as also before us and by giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. Thus the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner accordingly. ITA No.1368/M/2022 Ms. Bhagyavanti Mahavir Jain 4 The Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and to file the relevant documents before the Ld. Commissioner. We clarify, in case of default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. "