DHARMESH JITENDRA SHETH,GIRGAON MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASSESSMENT UNIT, WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4919/MUM/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Dharmesh Jitendra Sheth against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was regarding the validity of the reassessment notice issued under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and the subsequent addition of Rs. 50,36,684 to the assessee's income under section 69A. The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to the validity of the reassessment as infructuous but allowed the appeal concerning the addition made under section 69A, directing a re-assessment after considering the assessee's submissions and documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32030 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.R. MAKWANA
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRIT SANGHVI
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 148; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4919/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dharmesh Jitendra Sheth, 5th floor, Tilak Mandir, 406/408, V.P. Road, Congress House, Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Vs. Income Tax Officer Assessment Unit, Ward 19(1)(1), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AUAPS 7658 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Kirit Sanghvi Revenue by : Mr. R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19/12/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/12/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds: GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment by AO by issuing notice dated 22nd June,2021 under s.148 read with s.147 of the Act without realizing that the jurisdiction for issuing notice under s.148 had been moved to Faceless Assessment/Appeal under s.151A . Relief claimed: 2. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.50,36,684/ Relief claimed: 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming application of s.69A of the Act to the facts of the case. Relief claimed: 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming application of s.115BBE of the Act. 5. Without prejudice to Ground No.4, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in proposing penalty under s.271AAC of the Act 2. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. In the grounds raised, the assessee has challenged u/s 148 of the Income disputed the addition 69A of the Act. As far as ground challenging validity of reassessment is concerned therefore, same is dismissed as infructuous. As far as ground merit of the addition counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee could not comply to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons that notices could not be served upon the assessee. The Ld. counsel for the assessee given an undertaking on behalf of the assessee if matter is restored back to the lower authorities Dharmesh Jitendra Sheth ITA No. 4919/MUM/2024 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment by AO by issuing notice dated 22nd June,2021 under s.148 read with s.147 of the Act without realizing that the jurisdiction for issuing notice under s.148 had been moved to Faceless Assessment/Appeal under Relief claimed: The impugned assessment declared null and void. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition Rs.50,36,684/- by passing the impugned Order dated 26th July,2024. Relief claimed: The impugned order be declared null and void. ed CIT(A) erred in confirming application of s.69A of the Act to of the case. Relief claimed: The impugned order be declared null and void. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming application of the Act. ut prejudice to Ground No.4, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts proposing penalty under s.271AAC of the Act We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. In the grounds raised, the challenged validity of the jurisdiction in u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) as well as disputed the addition of Rs.50,30,684/- on merit in terms of section 69A of the Act. As far as ground challenging validity of reassessment is concerned, same was not pressed before us and dismissed as infructuous. As far as ground merit of the addition of Rs.50,30,684/- is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee could not comply to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons notices could not be served upon the assessee. The Ld. counsel for the assessee given an undertaking on behalf of the assessee if matter is restored back to the lower authorities, the assessee shall Dharmesh Jitendra Sheth 2 ITA No. 4919/MUM/2024 order passed by AO by issuing notice dated 22nd June,2021 under s.148 read with s.147 of the Act without realizing that the jurisdiction for issuing notice under s.148 had been moved to Faceless Assessment/Appeal under d assessment declared null and void. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition by passing the impugned Order dated 26th July,2024. The impugned order be declared null and void. ed CIT(A) erred in confirming application of s.69A of the Act to The impugned order be declared null and void. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming application ut prejudice to Ground No.4, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. In the grounds raised, the validity of the jurisdiction in issue of notice tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) as well as on merit in terms of section 69A of the Act. As far as ground challenging validity of the not pressed before us and dismissed as infructuous. As far as ground onb is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee could not comply to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reasons notices could not be served upon the assessee. The Ld. counsel for the assessee given an undertaking on behalf of the assessee that , the assessee shall file all the information and produce the documents which would be called for and co proceedings/assessment proceedings. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer in absence of any documentary evidence filed on behalf of the assessee, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to him for deciding of Rs.50,36,685/- in terms of section 69A of the Act into consideration submission and explanation of the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee relat the addition are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee i statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/12/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Dharmesh Jitendra Sheth ITA No. 4919/MUM/2024 file all the information and produce the documents which would be called for and co-operate with the appellate proceedings/assessment proceedings. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer in absence of any ocumentary evidence filed on behalf of the assessee, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the for deciding the issue in dispute of disallowance in terms of section 69A of the Act into consideration submission and explanation of the assessee. the grounds of appeal of the assessee related to the merit of are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for nounced in the open Court on 30/12/2024. Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Dharmesh Jitendra Sheth 3 ITA No. 4919/MUM/2024 file all the information and produce the documents which would be operate with the appellate proceedings/assessment proceedings. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the finding of the Assessing Officer in absence of any ocumentary evidence filed on behalf of the assessee, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the the issue in dispute of disallowance in terms of section 69A of the Act after taking into consideration submission and explanation of the assessee. ed to the merit of are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. s partly allowed for Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "