VINAYAK BUCHADE, MUMBAI V. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, KALYAN

ITA 357/MUM/2023

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Vinayak Buchade against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding discrepancies in purchases amounting to Rs. 7,41,629. The primary contention was the alleged lack of adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard, leading to an ex parte order by the CIT(A). The tribunal, considering the submissions and the need for a fair hearing, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123535 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 357/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13) Vinayak Buchade Ujwal Industries, W/53 MIDC Phase II, MIDC Dombivli (E)- 421204 PAN: ADZPB3303R v. ACIT - Circle 3 2 nd Floor, Rani Mansion Above Canara Bank Murbad Road, Kalyan- 421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Sanjiv Brahme & Jayant Bhatt Department Represented by : Vranda U Matkari Date of Hearing : 12.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 09.12.2022 for the A.Y.2012-13. 2 ITA NO. 357/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13) Vinayak Buchade 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “(i) The CIT Appeal of National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the order of ACIT. (ii). The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the Addition of Rs. 7,41,629/~ being differences in purchases. (iii) The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the Addition of Rs. 7,41,6297- u/s 68/69C/37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv). The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, and modify aforesaid ground/s of Appellant or any time before the hearing as they may be advised from time to time.” 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 Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions, assessee could not used the opportunity and filed the relevant information in support of his 3 ITA NO. 357/MUM/2023 (A.Y: 2012-13) Vinayak Buchade case. s Considering 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. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 27 th April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 27.04.2023 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum