RAJARAM MURARI PEDNEKAR, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD27(3)-1, MUMBAI

ITA 5116/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4089 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITA VERMA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 5116/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) RAJARAM MURARI PEDNEKAR APPLE ENGINEERING OFF. UNIT NO. 8, DAULAT UDYOG BHAVAN, WADAVLI VILLAGE, OPP. BORLA SOCIETY CHEMBUR, MUMBAI- 400 074. PAN : AAJPP2070N VS. ITO, WARD-27(3)(1) TOWER NO. 6 VASHI RAILWAY STATION BUILDING 4 TH FLOOR VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-400 703. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY MS. SMITA VERMA DATE OF HEARING 25.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.05.2021 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 20.5.2019 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-25, ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(3)-L WITHOUT A PPRECIATING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-25, ERRED IN R EFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY IN FILING FIRST APPEAL. 3. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-25, ERRED IN D ISMISSING APPEAL MERELY ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF TH E CASE. 4. THE ASSESSEE RESERVES RIGHT TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ELECTRICAL AND CIVIL WORKS. PURSUANT TO INFORMATION FROM SALES TAX DEPARTMENT 2 REGARDING BOGUS PURCHASES, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE 100% ADDITION OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUN TING TO RS. 10,63,173/- PRIMARILY ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PRODUCTION OF ALLEGED S UPPLIERS. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS TIME BARRED NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 290 DAYS. 5. AGAINST THIS ORDER ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS NOT CONDONED THE DELAY OF 290 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY NOT ACCEPTING THE PLEA THAT THE DELAY WAS PRIMARILY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE CONSULTANT BY OBSERVI NG THAT NO CONFIRMATION OR AFFIDAVIT FROM THE SAID CONSULTANT HAS BEEN FILED. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO REFERRED TO A HOST OF CASE LAWS ON THE ISSUE OF NON -CONDONATION OF DELAY, WITHOUT ANALYZING HOW THEY APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 7. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE THE SMALL DELAY OF 290 DAYS DESERVED TO BE CONDONED, IN THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTORE THE MERITS OF APPE AL TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.5.2021. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (SHAMIM YAHY A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 18/05/2021 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 3 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI