J M ASSOCIATES ,MUMBAI V. .ACIT CIRCLE 20(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5633/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves J M Associates, the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A) which confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,81,39,254 to their income for the Assessment Year 2014-15. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to discrepancies in the sales figures reported and the installation charges recorded. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte as the assessee failed to respond to multiple notices. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that despite the non-compliance, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination on merits, highlighting the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473386 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANT SOMAIYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 250

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5633/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) J M Associates 135, Navab Chamber, ST Paul Street Hindmata, Dadar(E), Mumbaii-400014 Vs. ACIT Circle 20(2), Mumbai Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400012 PAN/GIR No. AAHFJ6750B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Nishant Somaiya Date of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date of Pronouncement 13/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT(A)-32, Mumbai/10772/2019-20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"Act\"] for the ITA no. 5633/MUM/2024 J M Associates 2 Assessment year [A.Y.] 2014-15, wherein Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal exparte. 2. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.27,23,118/- and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 22.12.2016. Later, on perusal of the sales Register, AO noticed that Gross Sales were Rs. 31,96,55,404/-, whereas as per Profit & loss A/c, the Sales were Rs.30,15,16,150/-. The difference of Rs. 1,81,39,254/- was on account of the Installation Charges, which was included in the details of Sales of Rs. 31,96,55,404/-. The reason for not including Installation charges in total Sales was not explained by the assessee. Thereafter, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Simultaneously, notice u/s 142(1) was also issued and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that entry for the installation charges of Rs. 1,81,39,254/- was wrongly made in the sales register. However, the Ld. AO was not satisfied and added aforesaid installation charges of Rs. 1,81,39,254/- 3. Aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal exparte. ITA no. 5633/MUM/2024 J M Associates 3 4. The assessee has filed this appeal before this Tribunal on the ground that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,81,39,254/- made by the AO. 5. None responded for the assessee, hence, we have perused the records and heard the Ld. DR. 6. Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee did not respond to the various notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR has further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was compelled to pass exparte order but on merits. Prayed to dismiss assessee’s appeal. 7. We notice that the learned CIT(A) issued notices to assessee on five different occasions, however appellant assessee did not comply any notice and made no endeavor to make submissions before the learned CIT(A). However, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford an opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for denovo adjudication afresh on merit. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the first appellate authority for the expeditious and effective disposal of the appeal. Assessee shall refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to ITA no. 5633/MUM/2024 J M Associates 4 say, that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms. Impugned order dated 01.08.2024 is set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13.12.2024. Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 13/12/2024 ANIKET GANESH RAJPUT, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// "