GANESHRAM CHAUDHARY , MUMBAI V. ITO, 20(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1676/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Ganeshram Chaudhary against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The primary grievances included the legality of the assessment order, violations of natural justice, and incorrect additions to the total income declared by the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the CIT(A) had not addressed these issues on merits, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302541 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAKOLI GHOSH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1676/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year :2014-15) Shri Ganeshram Chaudhary Room No.25, 1 st Floor Punarjivan 45-51 Kamathipura, 5 th Lane Grant Road Mumbai – 400 003 Vs. ITO, 20(1)(2), Mumbai PAN/GIR No.ALUPC6560G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue by Ms. Kakoli Ghosh Date of Hearing 31/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 16/03/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y.2014-15. 2. In the grounds of appeal assessee has raised the following grounds:- ITA No.1676/Mum/2023 Shri Ganeshram Chaudhary 2 1. “The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that the order u/ s. 143(3) of the Act passed by the AO is bad in law, Illegal and null and void. 2. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that the in fact in passing the assessment order in gross violation of principles of natural justice 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that assessing the Total Income of the appellant at Rs. 30,16,390/- as against the Total Income of Rs. 4,47,370/- declared in the Return of Income. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the addition of an amount of Rs. 7,60,507/- being the amount borrowed by the appellant and disallowing interest of Rs.8,400/-of the said loan. Further the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the above addition by applying the provision of Section 68 of the Act. 5. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the addition of an amount of Rs. 5,43,202/- being the purchase from R.D. Sales Corporation on plea that the appellants name dose not exists in the audited financials of the supplier. Further the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the above addition by considering bogus purchase and added to the total income of the appellants under the head business income. 6. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the addition of an amount of Rs. 12,56,913/-being the purchase from from Allit Metal & tubes and not affording another opportunity to appellant to produce their address on the fact and in the circumstances of the case he ought not have completed the assessment hastily. Further the learned CIT (A) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the the above addition by considering bogus purchase and added to the total income of the appellants under the head business income 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not holding that the AO erred in passing the assessment order in gross violation of principles of natural justice. ITA No.1676/Mum/2023 Shri Ganeshram Chaudhary 3 3. Before us, ld. Counsel submitted that ld. CIT(A) has passed exparte order without deciding the issue on merits. He submitted that last date of hearing was fixed for 15/03/2023. Assessee had filed adjournment application before the ld. CIT(A) which is evident from the screenshot of ITB portal. Assessee had uploaded the adjournment request for gathering of material and adjournment was sought upto 30/03/2023, however, the ld. CIT(A) has passed an order on 16/03/2023. Accordingly, he requested that matter should be restored back to the file of the ld. AO to decided afresh. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that though various opportunities were given to the assessee prior to this date also however, since ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits, therefore, matter can be restored back to the file of First Appellate Authority. 5. After considering the facts placed on record, we find that the ld. AO had made addition on account of loan received and also disallowance of interest on such loan and also made addition on account of purchases to the tune of Rs.12,56,913/- and has disallowed the entire purchases. Since when the ld. CIT(A) has passed an exparte order when assessee had sought an adjournment but the same has not been taken into cognizance by the ld. CIT(A. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ITA No.1676/Mum/2023 Shri Ganeshram Chaudhary 4 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 31 st July, 2023. Sd/- (GAGAN GOYAL) Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 31/07/2023 KARUNA, sr.ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy//