SANDEEP BABULAL JAIN HUF, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1171/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5617 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

, , ! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . 1194 / / 2020 (%. 2015-16 ) ITA NO.1194/MUM/2020(A.Y 2015-16) M/S. KYP POWER SOURCE AND SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., C/O.RAJKUMAR JAJU, E/302, ASHOK NAGAR, VAZIRA NAKA, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI 400 091 PAN-AADCK-9893-K ...... ' / APPELLANT % VS. ITO -12(1)(3), ROOM NO.148, 1 ST FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 ..... ()/ RESPONDENT '*/ APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA ()*/ RESPONDENT BY : MS. SMITA VERMA %+) / DATE OF HEARING : 08/09/2021 ,-. +) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/09/2021 / ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -20, MUMBAI [IN SHORT THE CIT (A)] DATED 06/12/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. SHRI PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA APPEARING ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS ASS AILED AN EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A). THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR MAKING ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT ' THE ACT') WERE NOT RESPONDED BY 2 ITA NO.1194/MUM/2020(A.Y 2015-16) THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURCHAS ES. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED VARIOUS D OCUMENTS INCLUDING PAN DETAILS, PURCHASE BILLS, LEDGER ACCOUNTS, CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE VENDORS AND THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME MADE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE UN PROVED PURCHASES. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED THAT THERE IS DISCREPANCY IN THE DATES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I N PARA 4.7 OF THE ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT THROUGH MAIL ON 27/12/2017, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 22/12/2017. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DO CUMENTS BEFORE THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ATTEND THE PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS NO NOTICE WAS EVER RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS A PRIMA-FACIE GOOD CASE IN ITS FAVOUR. THE ASSESSEE IS WELL AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT WOULD NOT GAIN BY NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED TO PRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTI ONS ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, WHICH ARE PART OF RECORD. 3. PER CONTRA, MS. SMITA VERMA, REPRESENTING THE DE PARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD.DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SEVERAL NOTICES TO THE ASSESSE E WHICH WERE DULY SERVED, HOWEVER, DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. BOTH SIDES HEARD, ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW EX AMINED. THE CIT(A) IN AN EX- PARTE PROCEEDINGS HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON FIVE OCCASIONS AND ALL THE SAID NOTICES WERE DULY PURPORTEDLY SERVED ON 3 ITA NO.1194/MUM/2020(A.Y 2015-16) THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT COMMENTING ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THIS APPEA L BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) UPON SERVICE OF NOTICE AND CO-OPERATE IN T HE PROCEEDINGS. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET-ASIDE AND APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON WEDNESDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, 0%/ DATED 08/09/2021 VM , SR. PS (O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT , 2. () / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 1) ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. 1) CIT 5. 23()% , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 34567 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 4 ITA NO.1194/MUM/2020(A.Y 2015-16) DETAILS DATE I NITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED /DIRECTLY TYPED ON COMPUTER 08/09/2021 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 08/09/2021 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER