ETERNITY JEWELS,MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-APPESL-NFAC DELHI, MUMBAI

ITA 5594/MUM/2024

AI Insights

Eternity Jewels, a manufacturer and exporter of diamond-studded gold jewelry, appealed against the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for concealment of income. The AO had initially assessed the income at Rs. 1,15,18,651, later revised to Rs. 1,35,01,599 after invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, noting the assessee's non-compliance during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal, after hearing the Departmental Representative and reviewing the materials, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough examination on merits, providing the assessee another opportunity to present its case with supporting documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312761 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM ITA No. 5594/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Eternity Jewels G-11, Gems & Jewellery Complex-2, Seepz, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 096. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC, Delhi Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400012. PAN/GIR No. AAAFE7145E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri. Hemanshu Joshi SR. DR. Date of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has 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) 2013-14. 2. As there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, we hereby proceed to dispose off this appeal by hearing the learned Departmental Representative (‘ld. DR’ for short) and on perusal of the materials available on record. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. In law and as per the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A), erred in confirming the levy penalty of Rs 6,12,732/- in total disregard of the facts ITA No. 5594/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013 -14) Eternity Jewels 2 submitted in the detailed Statement of Facts filed Thus, the order passed is bad in law and therefore deserves to be annulled. 2 In law and as per the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income when all the facts were duly explained and order u/s 143(3) was passed after examination of the issue based on which revision was directed Thus, the order passed on misinterpretation of the facts of the case and change of opinion is erroneous /unjust/ unreasonable and thus the order passed deserves to be quashed 3. In law and as per the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in levying penalty based on the observation that the appellant has accepted the addition since it has not preferred an appeal. Thus, the order passed on such an absurd conclusion deserves to be quashed. 4. In law and as per the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Id. A.O. in levying penalty purely based on the observation that the appellant did not avail of the opportunity granted by the Hon'ble CIT(A) and hence appellant was not serious to follow up with the appellate proceedings, without going on the merit of the case, where all the details were otherwise on record and even stated in the appellate order.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a manufactures and exporter of Diamond Studded Gold Jewellery. The assessee had filed its return of income electronically dated 23.10.2013, declaring total income at Rs. Nil after set off of brought forward losses. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were duly issued and served upon the assessee and the assessment order dated 16.125.2016, was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144(c) of the Act, where the ld. AO determined the total income at Rs. 1,15,18,651/-. The ld. PCIT invoked the revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act for the reason that the assessment order was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set aside the assessment order dated 16.12.2016, vide an order dated 25.02.2019. The learned Assessing Officer ('ld. A.O.' for short) had passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act dated 31.12.2019, determining total income at Rs. 1,35,01,599/- ITA No. 5594/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013 -14) Eternity Jewels 3 after making an addition of Rs. 19,82,948/-. The ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income. The ld. AO vide order dated 11.01.2022 levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,12,732/-. 3. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the penalty order and the ld. CIT(A) vide an ex parte order dated 02.09.2024 upheld the penalty levied by the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings and has failed to furnish any reply before the ld. CIT(A). 4. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has challenged the penalty levied by the ld. A.O. before the first appellate authority but has been non-compliant throughout the appellate proceeding. Though, the assessee has raised various grounds on the merits and on the legal ground the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidences in support of its claim even before us. In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case before the First Appellate Authority with all supporting documentary evidences to substantiate its claim. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings without any undue delay on its side and the ld. CIT(A) is also directed to decide the issue on the merits of the case based on the submission of the assessee. We therefore remand all these issues back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for denova adjudication. ITA No. 5594/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013 -14) Eternity Jewels 4 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 29.04.2025 Karishma J. Pawar (Stenographer) Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "