MUNNIDEVI PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL, Thane V. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 432/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7439 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 432/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) Munnidevi Pawankumar Agarwal 12/201, Flower Valley Near Cadbury, Thane - 400601 PAN: AADPA6937B v. Income Tax Officer – 17(2)(4) Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Mahita Nair Date of Hearing : 07.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.07.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 11.11.2016 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) - 28 has erred in law and on facts in confirming the 2 ITA NO. 432/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) Munnidevi Pawankumar Agarwal addition of Rs.1,08,06,320/- made by the ld. A O, on account of bogus purchases without appreciating the following: a. All the purchases made are genuine and against proper billing. b. There are no purchases made from the parties stated in the Assessment Order. C. The source of information of the assessing officer is not reliable and there was no circumstantial evidence gathered to arrive at the conclusion. 2. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 1,08,06,320/- made in respect of bogus purchases from hawala parties be deleted as the same is unwarranted. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.” 3. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR on merits. 4. Considered the submissions of Ld.DR and material placed on record. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity only in two occasions and assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice 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 3 ITA NO. 432/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) Munnidevi Pawankumar Agarwal Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 14 th July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 14.07.2022 Giridhar, Sr.PS 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