ANIL BABULAL JAIN, MUMBAI V. ITO-19(1) (1) , MUMBAI

ITA 436/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6057 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVIN MISHRA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 436/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2010-11) Anil Babulal Jain Shop No. 55/A Ground Floor, 23/24 4 th Kumbharwada 2 nd Pathan Street Mumbai-400 004. PAN : AGFPJ6994H Vs. ITO-19(1)(1) Matru Mandir Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 007. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Navin Mishra Department by Ms. Naina Krishnakumar Date of Hearing 18.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.07.2022 O R D E R The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25.9.2019 passed by learned CIT(A)-30, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in not only confirming the addition relating to alleged bogus purchases, but also enhancing the same to 100% of the purchase value. 2. I have heard the parties and perused the record. The addition made by the Assessing Officer relates to alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee. The AO assessed the profit element @ 15% of the value of alleged bogus purchases. The Ld CIT(A) enhanced it to 100%. However, I noticed that the assessment had been completed by the Assessing Officer to the best of his judgement under section 144 of the I.T. Act. Further learned CIT(A) was constrained to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, since the assessee did not appear before him despite giving several opportunities. Thus the impugned additions have been made by the tax authorities without hearing assessee. Anil Babulal Jain 2 3. Natural justice calls for providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, I am of the view that the assessee should be provided with an opportunity to present his case before learned CIT(A). Due to the conduct of the assessee, I am of the view that the same shall be given at a cast. Accordingly I impose a cost of Rs. 2,000/- upon the assessee, which shall be paid to the credit of Income Tax Department as ‘other fees’. 4. Subject to the payment of above fees, proof of which should be produced before learned CIT(A), I set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to his file for examining them afresh after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I also direct the assessee to fully cooperate with learned CIT(A) for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.07.2022. Sd/- (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 18/07/2022 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// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT, Mumbai