AWADESH SURYANATH PANDEY, MUMBAI V. ITO 26(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3875/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1819 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITA VERMA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 201; 73

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) I.T.A. NO. 3875 /MUM/ 201 9 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ) AWADESH SURYANATH PANDEY B - 303, JAI DURGA CHSL MILITARY ROAD, ANDHERI - EAST MUMBAI - 400 072. PAN : AILPP1070A V S . ITO - 26(1)(2) KAUTILYA BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BKC BANDRA EAST MUMBAI - 400 051. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY MS. SMITA VERMA DATE OF HEARING 02 . 12 . 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03 .1 2 . 20 20 O R D E R THIS I S AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [IN SHORT LEARNED CIT(A)] D ATED 5.12.2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 WHEREIN LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 2. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 42,93,792/ - AS BOGUS PURCHASE. 3. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT CONDONE THE DELAY OF 73 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL, WHICH WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE RELATIVE AND LAC K OF PROPER ADVICE BY CONSULTANT . T HEREAFTER HE FURTHER DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 4. UPON HEARING LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSING THE RECORD, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SMALL DELAY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDONED ON THE BASIS OF REASONABLE CAUSE SUBMITTED . THE SAME IS CONDONED IN SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE. AS REGARDS DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FOR NON - 2 PROSECUTION I FIND THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE LEARNED CIT( A ) TO PASS AN ORDER ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND N OT DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON - PROSECUTION. 5. FOR THIS PROPOSITION I PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. 1. CIT VS PREMKUMAR ARJUNDAS LUTHRA (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (BOM)302 2. CIT VS S CHENNIAPPA MUDALIAR(1969)74 ITR 1(SC) ACCORDING L Y IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE I REMIT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). LEARNED CIT( A ) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AND PASS AN ORDER ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. I N THE RESULT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE ITAT RULES BY PLACING THE RESULT ON NOTICE BOARD ON 03.12.2020. SD/ - (SH A MIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 03 / 1 2 / 20 20 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( AS SISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI