JASUM REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. CIT (A)/NFAC, DELHI

ITA 288/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5097 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC-1
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Accommodation entries; Set aside
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.288/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Jasum Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Office No.101, Agarwal Corner, Plot No.21, Sector 21, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, PAN: AACCJ2304H Vs. CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Kiran P. Unavekar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01 . 06 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21 . 06 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Appellant M/s. Jasum Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘assessee’) by filing present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2011-12 on the grounds inter alia that: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate authorities, NFAC has erred in passing the first appeal order without affording any opportunity of ITA No.288/M/2022 M/s. Jasum Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 2 being heard in the matter which is against the principles of natural justice and hence the order so passed be set aside. 2. The authorities below have erred in adding/confirming the addition of Rs.7,50,000/- and the reason assigned for doing so, were wholly wrong and not in accordance with the provisions of law, stand taken by the department in all other similar cases. The authorities have not even mentioned as to under which section the said addition had been made or confirmed despite having submitted all the details. Thus the addition/confirmation of the addition of the said sum is not in accordance with provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 and rules made thereunder and hence need to be deleted or d percentage of this can only be considered to be derived as deemed income.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : assessee is a private limited company, into the business of trading and textile goods and investment. Assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.386/-. Assessing Officer (AO) on the basis of information sent by DDIT (Investigation) reopened the case and initiated the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). AO found the assessee having indulged in issuing bogus accommodation entries. On failure of the assessee to explain suspicious bogus transaction to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- with account number 607701010050233 maintained with Union Bank of India, managed by one Mr. Binod Kumar Bihani who is not traceable and a known entry provider, AO made addition of Rs.7,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee and thereby framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved the ITA No.288/M/2022 M/s. Jasum Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 3 assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal. 4. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. 5. Bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that the order has been passed ex-parte by recording the finding that “the appellant does not appear to be serious in prosecuting its appeal despite number of notices given to it.” However, no date of issuance of any such notice is given nor it is mentioned if such order was ever served upon assessee. Providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee is a sine qua non for a sustainable adjudication process. Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal merely for want of prosecution by the assessee without deciding the case on merits. So we are of the considered view that to substantiate the cause of justice and to decide the issue once for all present appeal is required to be decided by the Ld. CIT(A) on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.06.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 21.06.2022. * Kishore, Sr. P.S. ITA No.288/M/2022 M/s. Jasum Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 4 Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.