MUKESH DESAI, MUMBAI V. WARD 25(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2732/MUM/2022

AI Insights

Mukesh Desai, the appellant, challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, which pertained to the Assessment Years 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The primary issue arose from the reassessment orders under sections 143(3) and 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where substantial additions were made to the assessee's income based on information from a survey on M/s. Swastik Enterprises. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's appearance and lack of documentary evidence during the initial appeals, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125785 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 143(3); 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM IT A N o s . 2 734, 27 3 3 & 2 73 2/ M u m /2 0 2 2 (A s s e ss me nt Y e a rs : 2 010 - 1 1, 20 1 3- 1 4 & 20 14- 1 5 ) Mukesh Desai 9, Madhu Kunj, Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057 V s. ITO, Ward-25(3)(1) Mumbai P A N / G I R N o. AA BP D 77 88 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Akash Kumar Revenue by : Ms. Mahita Nair D a te o f H e a r i n g : 21.03.2023 D ate of P ro n ou n ce me n t : 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: These appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2010-11, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. 2. Since the facts are identical in all these appeals, we hereby proceed to pass a consolidated order in these appeals by taking ITA No. 2734/Mum/2012 as a lead case for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 2734/Mum/2012 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had filed its return of income dated 14.10.2010, declaring total income at Rs.1,83,430/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 30.03.2013 was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act where the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) determined the 2 I T A N o s . 2 7 3 4 , 2 7 3 3 & 2 7 3 2 / M / 2 0 2 2 ( A . Y s . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 & 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 ) Mukesh Desai vs.ITO total income at Rs.2,31,88,490/-. Subsequent to the information received from the DDIT(Investigation) Unit-4(2), Mumbai that pursuant to a survey proceeding dated 14.01.2017 on M/s. Swastik Enterprises, a statement of the proprietor Shri Bijal A. Shah was recorded wherein he had admitted the cash transaction with certain parties that was made without any actual delivery of gold and was engaged in providing accommodation entries in which the assessee is said to be one of the beneficiary. The assessee’s case was reopened and the impugned assessment order was passed dated 30.12.2017 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by making various additions/disallowances towards transactions done with M/s. Swastik Corporation as unaccounted transaction and determined the total income at Rs.2,39,30,007/-. 4. The assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the impugned addition made by the A.O. 5. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation or documentary evidences in support of its claim. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee was unable to furnish the relevant documentary evidences and had failed to appear before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR further prayed that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) after providing the assessee one more opportunity to present his case. 8. The learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue had nothing to controvert the same. 3 I T A N o s . 2 7 3 4 , 2 7 3 3 & 2 7 3 2 / M / 2 0 2 2 ( A . Y s . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 & 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 ) Mukesh Desai vs.ITO 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the assessee has not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) in order to present his case neither has the assessee filed any corroborative evidences in support of his claim. In view of the principles of natural justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee may be given one last opportunity to present his case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we remand all this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication based on the merits of the case. The assessee is directed to co-operate with the proceedings without any further delay. 10. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2732 & 2733/Mum/2022 11. As the facts are identical to the facts with that of ITA No. 2734/Mum/2022, hence the same applies mutatis mutandis to these appeals also i.e., for A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014- 15 and are remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 12. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.03.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. Baskaran) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 31.03.2023 Roshani , Sr. PS 4 I T A N o s . 2 7 3 4 , 2 7 3 3 & 2 7 3 2 / M / 2 0 2 2 ( A . Y s . 2 0 1 0 - 1 1 , 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 & 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 ) Mukesh Desai vs.ITO Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai