F.T. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 30(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1931/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4488 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/ SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & AMARJIT SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 1931 /MUM /20 1 7 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 9 - 1 0 ) M/S. F.T. CONSTRUCTION 201 - IB, MAQBUL APARTMENT PATHANWADI, RANI SANI MARG MALAD (EAST) MUMB AI - 400 097. PAN : AABFF6882C VS. ACIT - 30(1) C - 13, 5 TH FLOOR, R.NO. 503, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA(EAST) MUMBAI - 400 051. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI MANOJ KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 0 1 . 8 . 201 8 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT 0 1 . 8 . 201 8 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (A M) : - THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 41, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO A.Y. 2009 - 10. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVE N THOUGH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST ON AN EARLIER OCCASION. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CO NTRACTOR. THE REVENUE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INFLATING PURCHASES BY OBTAINING BOGUS BILLS FROM HAWALA PARTIES. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED ASSESSMENT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCH ASED MATERIAL TO THE TUNE OF ` 22.03 LAKHS FROM ONE OF THE HAWALA PARTIES NAMED M/S. DEEP TRADERS. IN THE REOPENED ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED PURCHASE CLAIM OF ` 22.03 LAKHS REFERRED ABOVE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT(A), 2 YET IT DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). HENCE, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PASSED AN EX - PARTE ORDER AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 30% OF THE VALUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND ACCORDINGLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF 70 %. STILL AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). BESIDES THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT IT HAS WRITTEN BACK THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO M/S. DEEP TRADERS IN A.Y. 2012 - 13 AND OFFERED THE SAME TO TAX IN THAT YEAR. 5. WE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BRINGING NEW FACT ON RECORD , WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY BOTH THE TAX AUTHORITIES AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF THE IR ORDERS. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX - PARTE ORDER, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MOR E OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO HIS FILE FOR ADJUDICATING THEM AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE E N PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 0 1 . 8 .201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - (AMARJIT SINGH ) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 0 1 / 8 / 20 1 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI