JINDUTT STEEL , MUMBAI V. ITO WD 19(2) (1) , MUMBAI

ITA 1393/MUM/2023

AI Insights

This case involves Jindutt Steel, a partnership firm engaged in trading of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metals, which filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The appeal pertained to the Assessment Year 2017-18, challenging the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which disallowed the claimed current year losses of Rs.4,36,70,626 due to lack of substantiating documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance in previous proceedings but decided to provide another opportunity to substantiate the claim, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299256 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNNY MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMNIAM
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM I TA N o. 139 3/ M u m / 20 23 ( A s s e ss me nt Y ea r: 20 1 7- 18 ) Jindutt Steel 21, 1 st Floor, Manipur House, 1 st Parsiwada Lane, Behind Alankar Cinema, Mumbai – 400 004 V s. ITO Ward 19(2)(1) Mumbai P A N / G I R N o. AA O F M 3335 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M Subramniam Revenue by : Shri Sunny Mathews D a te o f H e a r i n g : 10.07.2023 D ate of P ro n o u n c e me n t : 23.08.2023 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) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has challenged the assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Act and the addition/disallowance of current year losses at Rs.4,36,70,626/-. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading of Ferrous and Non Ferrous Metals and had filed its return of income dated 31.10.2017, declaring loss of Rs.4,36,70,626/- and was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 2 ITA No. 1 3 9 3 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 ) Jindutt Steel vs. ITO The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 was passed u/s. 144 of the Act where the A.O. made a disallowance of current year’s loss at Rs.4,36,70,626/- on the ground that the assessee has failed to substantiate the loss claimed by it by furnishing documentary evidences. 4. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), challenging the impugned addition made by the A.O. and the ld. CIT(A) vide an ex parte order dated 03.03.2023 upheld the order of the A.O. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is observed that the assessee has been non compliant before the A.O. and also before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has not furnished any supporting evidences by way of written submission and documentary evidences to substantiate the loss claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.4,36,70,626/-. 7. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee stated that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to file additional evidences before the A.O. in respect of its claim. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld.DR' for short), on the other hand, vehemently opposed to setting aside the matter for the reason that the assessee has been given various opportunities to present its case before the lower authorities. 8. On considering the rival submissions, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the file of the A.O. for the assessee to furnish additional evidences in support of its claim 3 ITA No. 1 3 9 3 / M u m / 2 0 2 3 ( A . Y . 2 0 1 7 - 1 8 ) Jindutt Steel vs. ITO inorder to adhere to the principles of natural justice. We hereby direct the assessee to co- operate with the proceeding without any undue delay and the ld. A.O. is directed to decide the issue on the merits of the case based on the submissions proposed to be made by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.08.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : Roshani , Sr. PS 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