FEMINA CONCEPT MARKETING & RETAIL TRADING (TEXTILES) CO PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6940/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Femina Concept Marketing & Retail Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning an assessment for the year 2014-15. The primary contention was the addition of Rs 6,03,93,900 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the Assessing Officer initially treated as unexplained due to non-compliance with notices. The CIT(A) had set aside the assessment order, directing a fresh assessment. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer, highlighting the need for the assessee to comply with procedural requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781391 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK PERAMPURNA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI GANTRA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 144; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6940/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2014-15) Femina Concept Marketing & Retail Trading (Textiles) Co Private Limited Office No. 4, Durga Bhavan, Sector-5, Aayapa Bhavan, Shree Nagar Wagle Estate, Thane-400604. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(1) Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCF6235E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ravi Gantra Respondent by : Shri Vivek Perampurna(Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 11.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 29.10.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2014-15 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows: Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA NO. 6940/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting addition of Rs 6,03,93,900/- u/s 69 as unexplained Investment made in the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the fact brought on record by the Assessing Officer that as per form 26AS, the actual purchase consideration was only Rs. 50,00,000/- paid through banking channels and also ignoring the non-applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(x) enacted w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19 to impugned Assessment Year. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the Appellate Order and framing the Grounds of Decision without issuing any notice of hearing to the appellant thereby not providing an opportunity of being heard resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice and forcing appellant to protracted litigation before multiple authorities. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting addition of Rs 6,03,93,900/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property only on the basis of information available on Individual Transaction System/AIR information in ITBA AIMS system and Assessing Officer neither provided the said information or source thereof to appellant nor demonstrated as to how the said information indicted the appellant nor making any independent enquiries in this regard. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in setting aside the assessment order to the office of the Ld. Assessing Officer by stating that no machinery was available wherein, an option to call for information from the appellant and remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer was very well within the powers of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250(4) of the Act or under Rule 46A of the Rules. Therefore, order is passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under misconception of judicial obligation and powers and therefore deserves to be quashed and addition made by Assessing Officer be deleted. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in setting aside the assessment order to the office of the Ld. Assessing Officer, which was never prayed in the appeal filed in Form 35 before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and reasonable cause existed for non-compliance before the Assessing Officer as per detailed statement of facts before him. 7. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal. The appellant prays before the Hon'ble Tribunal to delete the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) and/or any other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit.” Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 6940/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15. Since AIR information revealed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property for Rs. 6,03,93,900/- during the year under consideration, proceedings u/s. 147 were initiated by the AO. Since no compliance was made to any of the notices issued by ld. AO, the assessment was completed after treating the investment of Rs. 6,03,93,900/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Assessment order was accordingly passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B on 24.03.2022 at a total income of Rs. 6,03,93,900/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) set aside the assessment order vide his order dated 29.10.2024 with a direction to make a fresh assessment. Assessee has now preferred an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is clear that the issue has not been examined on merits as the assessee failed to make any compliance before the ld. AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to ld. Jurisdictional AO for making a fresh assessment after considering the assessee’s submissions. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the ld. AO. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA NO. 6940/MUM/2024 A.Y. 2014-15 Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 29.09.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (RENU JAUHRI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: Mumbai Date 29.09.2025 Anandi. Nambi/STENO आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "