MOHANLAL S GACHI , MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD 33(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1601/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Mohanlal S. Gachi, the appellant, who contested an ex-parte order from the CIT(A) regarding the assessment year 2013-14. The Income Tax Officer had reopened the case based on AIR information about substantial cash deposits in the appellant's bank account, which were claimed to be receipts for jewellery making labor charges. The Assessing Officer added a sum to the appellant's income under peak cash credit provisions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-submission of required documents, which the appellant attributed to a communication gap with his tax consultant. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for a hearing and restored the case to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136078 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNNY KACHHWAHA
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

म ु ंबई ठ “एस एम स ” , म ु ंबई स , स सम! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER सं. 1601/म ु ं/2023 ( %. 2013-14) ITA NO.1601/MUM/2023(A.Y 2013-14) Mohanlal S. Gachi, Gala KD Compound,2 nd Galli Near Mahavir School, Charkop, Kandivali West, Mumbai -400 067. PAN: AIMPG-4469-R ...... ' /Appellant ब% म Vs. Income Tax Officer ,Ward -33(2)(3), Mumbai – 400 012. ..... ( ) /Respondent ' * / Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah ( ) * /Respondent by : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha स ु % ई + ) / Date of hearing : 24/07/2023 ,-. + ) / Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2023 श/ ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)] dated 09/03/2023, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The appeal is time barred by one day. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. The delay in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 2 ITA NO.1601/MUM/2023(A.Y 2013-14) 3. Shri Bhupendra Shah appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that appeal is against an exparte order passed by the CIT(A). He submitted that the case of assessee was reopened on the basis of AIR information that the assessee had cash deposit in the bank account to the tune of Rs.12,81,952/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that the cash amount received on various dates was in respect of jewellery making labour charges. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.2,86,737/- based on peak cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. 3.1 Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 17/12/2018 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued notice to the assessee. On 17/02/2023 the assessee filed letter seeking adjournment. On the next date of hearing i.e. 06/03/2003 the assessee was ready with reply but due to some miscommunication the Tax Consultant could not upload the reply. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte on 09/03/2023. He prayed for an opportunity to appear before the CIT(A) and to furnish reply. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee stated that the assessee undertakes to appear before the CIT(A), if an opportunity is afforded to him to represent the case before the CIT(A). 4. Per contra, Shri Sunny Kachhwaha representing the Department vehemently opposed the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee by CIT(A), however, the assessee failed to make submissions before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had no other option but to decide the appeal ex-parte 3 ITA NO.1601/MUM/2023(A.Y 2013-14) on the basis of material available on record. Even before, the Assessing Officer assessee has not filed documentary evidence to support his contention. 5. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. A reading of the impugned order shows that the assessee had appeared before the CIT(A) on 17/02/2023 and sought adjournment. The case was adjourned to 06/03/2023. On the said date, there was no response from the assessee. Consequently, the CIT(A) decided the appeal in an ex-parte proceedings The contention of the assessee is that the reply to be furnished on 06/03/2023 was ready but could not be upload on portal due to some communication gap between the assessee and the Tax Consultant. Taking into consideration, entire facts of the case, the appeal is restored to the file of CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, after considering the submissions of the assessee, in accordance with law. 6. The assessee is directed to make submissions before the CIT(A) without fail on receipt of notice . In case the assessee fails to furnish submissions, the CIT(A) is at liberty to take an adverse view. 7. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on Monday the 24 th day of July, 2023. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) स /JUDICIAL MEMBER म ु ंबई/ Mumbai, 0 % ं /Dated 24/07/2023 Vm, Sr. PS (O/S) 4 ITA NO.1601/MUM/2023(A.Y 2013-14) त ल प अ े षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. '/The Appellant , 2. ( ) / The Respondent. 3. ु 1) CIT 4. 2 3 ( ) % , . . ., म ु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 3 45 6 7 /Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)/ Sr.Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai