RAMCHANDRA U CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI V. ITO 19 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4588/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6328 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY J SETHI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(1); 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI , ! .#$% , ( ! BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. . 4588 / / 2019 (. .2010-11 ) ITA NO. 4588/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2010-11) RAMACHANDRA U CHOUDHARY, ASHAPURA STEEL INDIA, SHOP NO.4, 55/57, GOLPITHA BLDG. 4TH KUMBHARWADA, MUMBAI 400 004. PAN:AHRPC 0300M / VS. : / APPELLANT ITO-19(3)(1), ROOM NO.202, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO, MUMBAI 400 007 : / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY J. SETHI / DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/01/2021 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-30, MUMBAI ( IN SHORT THE CIT (A)) DATED 09/05/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF FERROUS AND NON-FERROUS META LS. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY DGIT(INV), MUMBAI FROM SALES TAX DEPART MENT, GOVERNMENT OF 2 ITA NO. 4588/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2010-11) MAHARASHTRA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN OBTAI NING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS.22,77,663/- FROM VARIOUS SUSPICIOUS DEALERS, THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS RE OPENED. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 AND 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( IN SHORT THE ACT), THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. AG GRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05/02/2016, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE AGAINCHOOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES. THE CIT(A) IN AN EX-PART E PROCEEDINGS CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APP EAL OF ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI SANJAY J. SETHI, REPRESENTING THE DEPARTM ENT SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NON-COOPERATIVE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS AS WELL AS THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS IN DULGED IN OBTAINING BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS FROM DECLARED HAWALA OPERATORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES MADE ADDITION OF 100% BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE AFTER FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) DID NOT BOTHER TO APPEAR BEFORE CIT(A) DESPITE SERVICE OF SEVERAL NOT ICES. THE CIT(A) HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IN AN EX-PARTE PROC EEDINGS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) DESPITE SERVICE O F NOTICES REPEATEDLY. THE CONDUCT OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS DEPLO RABLE. IT GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW. KEEPING A SIDE THE PAST CONDUCT OF ASSESSEE FOR THE TIME BEING, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO GRANT AN 3 ITA NO. 4588/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2010-11) OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CI T(A) AND PRODUCE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SUBMISSIONS. THE CIT( A) SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL DE- NOVO AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IF STILL THE ASSESSEE FAIL S TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AFTER PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE, THE CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LI BERTY TO TAKE ADVERSE VIEW. 6. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET-ASIDE AND THE APPEAL O F ASSESSEE IS RESTORED TO CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 7. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MONDAY, T HE 18 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, -'/ DATED: 18/01/2021 VM , SR. PS(O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. . / THE APPELLANT , 2. /0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 10 ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. 10 CIT 5. 23/0' , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 345$6 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI