SHRI VARDARAJ PRALHAD JOSHI SHI, MUMBAI V. ITO 21(3)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 589/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4627 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M. SUBRAMNIAM
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (JM) I.T.A. No. 589/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2013-14) Shri Va rdaraj Pralhad J oshi 19A/204, Garden Hill CHS Ltd., New Dindoshi, MHADA Colony, Be hind NNP Gore gaon Ea st Mumb ai-400 065. PAN : ADDPJ5187 D Vs. ITO-21(3)(5) Room No. 117 1 s t Floor Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Pare l Mumbai-400 01 2. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri M. Subramniam Department by Shri Vrunda Matkarni Date of Hearin g 21.06.2022 Date of Pr on ouncem ent 22.06.2022 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27.1.2020 passed by learned CIT(A)-33, Mumbai and it relates to assessment year 2013- 14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition relating to bogus purchases and bogus sundry creditors. 2. The Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not get enough opportunity to furnish details called for by the Assessing Officer. Inviting our attention to the assessment order learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued notices dated 25.2.2016 under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act to various creditors requiring compliance by them latest by 3.3.2016, i.e., he has given just 7 days from the date of notice and it is not clear when the notices were actually posted. The AO has tabulated the details mentioning that some of the notices have been returned back and no reply was received from other parties. The assessee was asked to reply on the fact of non-compliance by the creditors on 16.3.2016, but the Shri Vardaraj Pralhad Joshi 2 assessee could not gather necessary details from creditors for want of time. Hence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 30.3.2016 by adding purchases as well as sundry creditors treating them as bogus. The Learned AR further submitted that learned CIT(A) also did not provide enough opportunity to the assessee. He further submitted that the making addition of purchases as well as corresponding sundry creditors may result in double addition of same item. Accordingly, he submitted that the assessee may be provided opportunity to present his case properly before the Assessing Officer. 3. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. From the submissions made by Ld A.R and also on going through the assessment order, we agree with the submissions of Ld A.R that the assessee did not get enough opportunity, since assessment proceedings were taken up at the fag end of the limitation period. It is also not clear from the order passed by Ld CIT(A) as to whether the first appellate authority provided adequate opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that the assessee should be provided with an opportunity to present his case properly. In fact, affording adequate opportunity of being heard would promote the cause of justice. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining them afresh in accordance with law, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.06.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 22/06/2022 Copy of the Order forwarded to : Shri Vardaraj Pralhad Joshi 3 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