M/S SAIMAN SYNTHETICS, MUMBAI V. ASSTT CIT-CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2770/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Saiman Synthetics appealing against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, which upheld additions made by the Assessing Officer. These additions were related to unexplained investments and expenditures amounting to Rs. 12,44,325 and Rs. 7,65,094 respectively, under sections 69 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal noted that the assessee was not adequately heard in the previous proceedings and decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123805 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69; 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2770/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Saiman Synthetics Survey No. 128/2, House No. 2077 Om Sai Building, Raj Rajeshwari Compound Sonale, Bhiwandi - 421302 PAN: AAIFD0638H v. ACIT, Circle – 2(1) Room No. 804, 8 th Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Rushabh D. sundesha Department Represented by : Shri Sourabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 10.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 23.09.2022 for the A.Y.2017-18. 2 ITA NO. 2770/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Saiman Synthetics 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 12,44,325/- made by the Ld AO on account of difference in valuation of stock as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.7,65,094/- made by the Ld AO on account of difference in cash found as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act 1961 and the reason assigned for doing so are wrong and contrary to the Provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made there under. 3. Your Appellant crave, leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT(A) passed exparte order without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, therefore, considering additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). 4. Ld. DR has no serious objection in remitting the matter back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, on a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the even though the 3 ITA NO. 2770/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Saiman Synthetics Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear. We observe that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue without there being any submissions from the assessee on merits. We have considered the totality of facts and submissions of the Ld. AR and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without taking unnecessary adjournments. It is needless to say that the assessee may be given proper opportunity of being heard. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 31 st January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 31.01.2023 Giridhar, Sr.PS 4 ITA NO. 2770/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/s. Saiman Synthetics Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum