DEEPAK MAHADEO BHOIR ,MUMBAI V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 42(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3597/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,27,05,322 to his income for the assessment year 2013-14. The addition was based on alleged transactions involving penny scrips and investments that were deemed unexplained under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee contended that these transactions were not his and that he was unaware of them, having been misled by another individual, Mr. Jagdish Jani, who used a bank account opened under the assessee's name for his personal benefits. The tribunal noted that the assessee had not been aware of the assessment proceedings and had not received adequate opportunity to present his case, leading to an ex-parte assessment. Consequently, the tribunal restored the case to the AO for a re-assessment, allowing the assessee to submit additional evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473518 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.R. MAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: BHRAT KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Unexplained investment; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3597/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir C/o Bharat Kumar, 317, Prasd Chamber, Opera House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. PAN: AJUPB 7841 H Vs. ITO, Ward-42(1)(2), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Mr. Bhrat Kumar Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 4,27,05,322/- on account of alleged transaction which is not belong to assessee. 2a. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming reopening of the case which is bad in Law. 2b. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in conforming reopening of the case which is beyond the period of six years. ITA No.3597/Mum/2024 Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir A.Y. 2013-14 2 2c. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of the case on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without application mind. 2d. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming reopening of the case on the basis of approved received from higher authority without digitally sign and without DIN no. 2e. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law the ld. JAO erred in issuing notice u/s 148 which is without his jurisdiction. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, ld. CIT(A) erred in not directing assessing officer to give the statement and alleged materials used against the assessee. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, ld. CIT(A) erred in not given opportunity for cross examination with the person whose statement used the against the assessee. 5. The assessee have right reserve to amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal.” 2. Fact in brief is that as per the information uploaded on insight portal of the Income Tax Department, the assessee sold the penny scrip of M/s. Finalysis Credit and Guarantee Co. and also the penny scrip of M/s. JR Industries Ltd. to facilitate introduction of unaccounted money to claim exempt capital gain to the value of Rs. 3,39,83,370/-. As per the information received from DDIT(Inv.), Vododara the assessee had traded in penny scrip, M/s. Gujrat Narmada Flyash Co. Ltd. and purchased 37,450 penny scrip for Rs. 14,95,952/- and sold 44295 scrips for Rs. 10,77,418/-. The assessee had also invested Rs. 72,26,000/- in Religare Securities Ltd. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.07.2022. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had not made any compliance to the various notices ITA No.3597/Mum/2024 Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir A.Y. 2013-14 3 issued by the assessing officer, therefore, assessment in the case of the assessee was completed ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and total income was assessed at Rs. 4,27,05,322/- after treating the trading in the penny scrips and investment in Religare Securities Ltd. as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he did not appear before the AO as he was not aware about assessment proceedings. He also submitted that he was a priest in a temple situated at Borivali East. He also submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that one Mr. Jagdish Jani used to visit the temple and at his instance the assessee had signed some documents for opening an account in the bank under bona fide belief. He further submitted that the said account was used by Mr. Jagdish Jani for his personal benefit and he was unaware about the nature of transactions. The assessee submitted that he has also filed a police complaint about the forgery committed by Mr. Jagdish Jani. 5. Under the circumstances, the assessee has filed the additional evidences before the First Appellate Authority. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidences filed by the assessee on the ground that assessee has not provided any reason / circumstances which have prevented the assessee from producing the documentary evidences before the assessing officer. ITA No.3597/Mum/2024 Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir A.Y. 2013-14 4 6. The ld. Counsel submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the circumstances which prevented the assessee from appearing before the AO and even the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the police complaint and other evidences filed by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. Counsel submitted that for deciding the case of the assessee on merit, more opportunity be provided before the assessing officer for taking into consideration the details and evidences which were not considered by the ld. CIT(A). 7. Looking to the above facts and circumstances, we consider that because of bona fide reasons and circumstances as discussed supra the assessee could not make compliance before the AO. Therefore, the case is restored to the file of the AO for deciding a fresh after verification and examination of the material evidences to be furnished by the assessee. Needless to say that assessee is at liberty to file the relevant documents and written submission before the assessing officer during the curse of set aside assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated:12.12.2024 Biswajit, Sr. P.S. ITA No.3597/Mum/2024 Deepak Mahadeo Bhoir A.Y. 2013-14 5 Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT, 4. The DR //True Copy// [ By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai "