SIDHARTH SATPAL SAIGAL, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER. 28(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1749/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5821 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B. LAXMI KANTH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “G” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1749/Mum./2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Sidharth Satpal Saigal, 103/104, Nimit CHS Sector- 19, Vashi, Sanpada S.O. New Mumbai, Thane-400705 Maharashtra vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(3)(1), Tower No.6, 2 nd Floor, Vashi Railway Station, Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2015-2016, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060331380(1) dated 31.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2 ITA.No.1749/Mum./2024 Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. It emerges t the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has rejected the assessee’s lower appeal “in limine” for want of payment ofadvanc tax whereby invoking sec. 249(4)(b) of the Act. He appears to have uphold the Assessing Officer’s action making sec.69 unexplained investment addition of Rs.1,28,00,000/- in otherwords for the foregoing sole reason. 3. The Revenue could hardly dispute during the course of hearing that there is no indication in the CIT(A)-NFAC’s lower appellate discussion about the assessee’s advance tax liability determination as per the provisions of the Act. Nor he appears to have afforded any opportunity to make good the said alleged default; if any. Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be 3 ITA.No.1749/Mum./2024 the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.07.2024 Sd/- Sd/- [AMARJIT SINGH] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumba, Dated 11 th July, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Mumbai concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “G” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.