BHAMRARAM S. PUROHIT, VASAI V. THE ITO WARD-19(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1553/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1461 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

म ु ंबई ठ “ब ” , ं म ज त " ं#, $% $ म& IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ं.1553/म ु ं/2020 ( ,. . 2011-12) ITA NO.1553/MUM/2020(A.Y.2011-12) Bhamraram S. Purohit, Unit No.4, Royal Industrial Hub, Plot No.A/31, Kaman Bhiwandi Road, Kaman Road, Nr Jain Mandir, Basai(E), Thane 401 208. PAN: BBSPP-0249-L ...... . /Appellant ब, म Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1)(2), 2 nd Floor, Room No.204, Matru Mandir,Tardeo, Mumbai 400 007. ..... / त /Respondent . 0 / Appellant by : None / त 0 /Respondent by : Shri C.T.Mathews ु , ई 1 त / Date of hearing : 24/05/2022 234 1 त / Date of pronouncement : 24/05/2022 $श/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-30, Mumbai [in short 'the CIT(A) ’] dated 15/07/2019, for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. A perusal of the appeal file shows that after filing of appeal in the year 2020, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite repeated notices. The 2 ITA NO.1553/MUM/2020(A.Y.2011-12) notices have been sent to the assessee on the address mentioned in Form No.36. As per record, the notices to the assessee through RPAD on different dates are tabulated herein below: Date of issuance of notice through RPAD Date of hearing. 03/08/2021 02/09/2021 27/09/2021 13/10/2021 09/11/2021 14/12/2021 02/03/2022 09/03/2022 14/03/2022 18/04/2022 19/04/2022 24/05/2022 The notices sent through RPAD have not been received back unserved from the Postal Authorities, therefore, it is deemed that the notices have been duly served on the assessee. Despite service of notice neither the assessee nor any Authorized Representative of the assessee has ever appeared to defend the appeal. 3. A perusal of the assessment order dated 14/03/2016 shows that the assessment order has been passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’]. It is evident from the assessment order that during assessment proceedings the assessee never responded to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was constrained to complete the assessment after invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act. 3.1 Against the assessment order assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The conduct of the assessee before the CIT(A) was no different. The CIT(A) issued notices to the assessee on the address mentioned in Form No.35. However, the assessee neither appeared before the CIT(A) in person nor any Authorized 3 ITA NO.1553/MUM/2020(A.Y.2011-12) Representative of the assessee appeared before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order confirming the additions and dismissed the appeal. 3.2 The conduct of the assessee right through shows that the assessee is negligent and non co-operative. Even before Tribunal the assessee has never appeared after filing of the appeal. In effect, the assessee has abandoned the appeal . In the absence of support from the assessee, this appeal is take up for adjudication with the assistance of ld.Departmental Representative and material available on record. 4. Shri C.T. Mathews representing the Department vehemently supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 4. We have heard the submissions made by ld.Departmental Representative and have examined the orders of authorities below. The assessee is engaged in trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer estimated the profit element embedded in such transactions at 12.5% and made addition of Rs.1,13,59,544/-. The CIT(A) enhanced the addition and made 100% disallowance of the bogus purchases. Taking into consideration entirety of facts we deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with law. 5. The assessee is directed to make submissions before the CIT(A) after service of notice, without fail. In case the assessee fails to respond to the notice issued by CIT(A), the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to take adverse view on assessee’s non-compliance. 4 ITA NO.1553/MUM/2020(A.Y.2011-12) 6. Before parting we would like to record that assessee is recalcitrant and has no respect for the law of land and the Adjudicating Authorities under the statute. This is a fit case for levy of cost for defying notices served on the assessee. A cost of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on the assessee. The assessee shall deposit cost in accordance with Rule 32A(2) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The CIT(A) shall entertain the appeal of assessee only after the cost is paid and proof of same is furnished to the CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 24 th day of May, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) $% /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER म ु ंबई/ Mumbai, 6 , ं /Dated 24/05/2022 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) त ल प अ े षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. ./The Appellant , 2. / त / The Respondent. 3. ु 7त( )/ The CIT(A)- 4. ु 7त CIT 5. 8 9 / त , , . . ., म ु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. 9 :; < = /Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai