HITESH MAHESHWARI,THAKURDWARI V. ITO 19(1)(5) MUMBAI, TARDEO

ITA 919/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Hitesh Maheshwari, the appellant, who contested the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the reopening of his assessment for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The reassessment was based on information from the VAT department indicating involvement in non-genuine bill transactions amounting to Rs 18,36,377. The appellant argued that the reassessment and subsequent disallowance of these purchases were unjust as he was not provided adequate notice or opportunity to contest the findings. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not given a proper hearing by the CIT(A) and thus restored the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26723 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHARAMVEER D. YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: JAY BHANSALI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 919/AHD/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12) Hitesh Maheshwari 65, Office 103, Kushal Bhawan, 5th Kumbharwada, Maharashtra –400004 v/s. बनाम ITO 19(1)(5) 215, 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tadeo Road, Maharashtra 400007 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR NO: AKSPM8992K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Jay Bhansali Respondent by : Shri Dharamveer D. Yadav Date of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2024 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-30/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 19.09.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: P a g e | 2 ITA No. 919/AHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Hitesh Maheshwari 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id NFAC erred in not granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant craves that the matter be set aside to the Id NFAC for hearing afresh. 2 The Id NFAC erred in upholding the reopening of the assessment u/s 148 of the Act. 3. The Id NFAC erred in upholding the disallowance of bogus purchases of Rs 18,36,377/-despite the fact that: •The AO has not issued any notice calling for details of purchases. • The name of the party from whom bogus purchases were allegedly made was not provided to the assessee. • The AO has merely relied upon information from VAT Department without doing any independent investigation. • The AO has falsely mention in the Assessment Order that he asked for details of the alleged entry providers, delivery challans, etc. • The AO did not grant an opportunity to cross examine the alleged entry providers. 3. The assessee has also raised following additional grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Officer, ITO Ward 1, Palanpur erred issuing notice dated 27.03.2018 under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to reopen the case of the assessee although he had no jurisdiction to do so. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order dated 28.12.2018 under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed;” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 3,43,280/- on 30.09.2011 for the AY 2011-12. After receipt information from VAT department that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries in non-genuine bills transaction of Rs. 18,36,377/-, the case was reopened. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 at an income of Rs. 18,36,377/- vide order dated 28.12.2018 after adding Rs. 18,36,377 on account of non- genuine purchases. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 919/AHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Hitesh Maheshwari 5. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed exparte, as there was no compliance by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 6. Before us, the first ground taken by the assessee pertains to not granting opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee has requested that the matter is set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is clear that no proper opportunity was given to the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). We accordingly deem it proper to restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI RENU JAUHRI (न्यातयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिनाुंक /Date 28.10.2024 अननक ेत स ुंह राजपूत/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant P a g e | 4 ITA No. 919/AHD/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Hitesh Maheshwari 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. "