NEETA PRAKASH BAVISHI, MUMBAI V. NATIONAL FAELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

ITA 1844/MUM/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Neeta Prakash Bavishi against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, which confirmed the disallowance of Rs.3,70,630/- by the Assessing Officer. The disallowance was based on the assessment that 25% of the purchases made by the assessee from certain suppliers were non-genuine, as these suppliers were identified as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department. The assessee contended that the purchases were genuine and provided substantial evidence to this effect. However, due to non-compliance with notices during the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte. The assessee's representative later explained that this non-compliance was due to the serious illness of her husband, which disrupted the family’s ability to manage communications effectively during the COVID period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130154 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2023
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Vijay Protein Ltd. (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH KISHINCHANDANI
• Assessee Lawyers: WAY OF STATEMENT OF FACTS ALONG
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1844/Mum/2023 Neeta Prakash Bavishi Vs. NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1844/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12) Neeta Prakash Bavishi 21/C, Sai Darshan, 6 th Floor, Above Akbar Allys Santacruz West, Mumbai – 400054 Vs. ITO Ward – 22(2)(4), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAFPB0332D Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Hero Rai Respondent by : Prakash Kishinchandani Date of Hearing 04.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 28.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, dated 03.04.2023 for A.Y. 2011- 12. The assessee has raised the following grounds before me: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT Appeal was not justified in passing and order confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making a disallowance of Rs.3,70,630/- being 25% of the alleged purchases of Rs.1,82,522/- without going into the various submissions that were filed by the appellant by way of statement of facts along with the grounds of appeal. 2. The appellant submits that the CIT Appeals has not even commented on the submissions of the appellant but has merely stated that as there were no compliance with the notices issued P a g e | 2 ITA No.1844/Mum/2023 Neeta Prakash Bavishi Vs. NFAC by him he has adjudicated the issues on merits without specifying or commenting on the submission of the appellant thereby wrongly upholding the addition of Rs. 3,70,630/- made by the Assessing Officer. 3. The appellant submit the CIT Appeals has not passed speaking order with regards to the various submissions of the appellant in the statement of facts thereby wrongly confirming the addition. 4. The appellant submits that the purchases made at genuine and merely by relying upon the information of the Sales Tax Department it cannot be held that the purchases of the appellant are bogus without appreciating the fact that the appellant has filed substantial evidence with the Assessing Officer in proof of the purchases. 5. The appellant craves leave to add to alter or very the grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.” 2. Fact in brief is that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.470,732/-. The case of the assesse was reopened after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 02.03.2015 on the basis of information received from the sale tax authorities that assessee has availed accommodation entries from certain hawala parties for assessment year 2011-12 to the amount of Rs.14,82,522/-. During the course of assessment the assessing officer noticed that assesse has made purchases from the following hawala parties to the amount of Rs.14,82,522/- during the year under consideration. Sr. No. TIN Name of the Bogus Supplier PAN of the bogus supplier Amount of Bogus Purchases (Rs.) 1. 27400536623V Shreeji Enterprise AKLPP3256E 107,100 2. 27590765584V Real Value Commerical Private Limited AAECR6808A 510,581 3. 27770716209V Span Enterprise AZTPP3280F 864,841 Total 14,82,522 P a g e | 3 ITA No.1844/Mum/2023 Neeta Prakash Bavishi Vs. NFAC On query the AO stated the assessee has submitted the detail pertaining to purchases made as under: “a. Party wise details of Purchases. b. Purchase Bills, Ledger Account of alleged bogus parties. c. Purchase Register & Sales Register d. Ledger extract of the suppliers accounts along with bank statement highlighting the payment made to these parties through cheques. e. Statement showing bill wise quantitative details of the purchases. f. A statement showing details of purchases made from the alleged bogus parties and the corresponding sales of the material purchased to other parties.” After referring the aforesaid details the assessee submitted that transactions of purchases were genuine and also contended that corresponding sales were also effected. However, the assessing officer has not agreed with the submission of the assessee on the reason that aforesaid suppliers had admitted before the sale tax department that they were involved in providing accommodation entries. Therefore, 25% of such purchases to the amount of Rs.370,630/- was treated as non-genuine purchases by the assessing officer after following the decision of M/s Vijay Protein Ltd. (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd). The AO stated that sale sales Tax Department has proved that the said parties were providing accommodation entries. 3. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Inspite of issuing of number of notices the assessee has not made any compliance at the time of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), therefore the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee reiterating the facts reported by the AO. P a g e | 4 ITA No.1844/Mum/2023 Neeta Prakash Bavishi Vs. NFAC 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before me the representative of the assessee submitted that assessee’s husband was suffering from brain tumour, therefore, because of disturbance in the family there was no person to look into the mails/messages received on the portal of the Income Tax Department. He also submitted that notices were issued between 20.07.2022 to 17.03.2023 which was the Covid period. Therefore, he requested that another opportunity be provided to the assessee for deciding her case on merit. On the other hand, the ld. D.R supported the order of lower authorities. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the facts as elaborated above the ld. CIT(A) has issued a number of notices as referred at page no. 11 of the appeal order, however, the assessee has not made any compliance. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte on the basis of finding of the assessing officer. I have perused the submission made by the assessee because of serious medical problem faced by the husband of the assessee (Brain tumour) there was disturbance in the family and no one could looks into email or message posted on the portal on the Income Tax Department, therefore, no compliance could be made before the ld. CIT(A), however, she has filed various detail before the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings. Looking to the above facts and circumstances I consider that in the interest of justice it is appropriate to provide more opportunity to the assessee for adjudicating her case on merit, therefore, I restore this case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after providing opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is directed to P a g e | 5 ITA No.1844/Mum/2023 Neeta Prakash Bavishi Vs. NFAC make compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure. Therefore, the ground of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.09.2023 Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 28.09.2023 Rohit: PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.