JAGDISH PIRCHAND JAIN,KUMBHARWADA MUMBAI V. ITO-19(2)(1), MATRU MANDIR MUMBAI

ITA 745/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Jagdish Pirchand Jain against the order of the CIT(A) dated 06.01.2025, which upheld the assessment order alleging bogus purchases and sustained the assumption of jurisdiction under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits and without providing his own reasoning, despite previous directions to the assessee to be more vigilant in attending hearings. The Tribunal found this approach not in consonance with the statutory requirements and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, imposing a cost on the assessee for non-compliance in previous hearings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126356 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 5467/Mum/2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH MESHRAM
• Assessee Lawyers: V.K. TULSIAN VIRTUALLY PRESENT
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Tangible material; Bogus; Grounds of appeal; Dismissed; HRA; A.Y. 2011-12; Purchases; Restored; Order under section 254
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 745/Mum/2025 (AY2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Jagdish Pirchand Jain Room No. 9, Todkari Sadan, 68, 1st Kumbhar Wada Near Goldeval, Mumbai – 400000. PAN: AFIPJ 6569 C Vs. ITO – 19(2)(1) Room No. 221, Matru Mandir, Mumbai - 400007 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V.K. Tulsian (virtually present) Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 Order Under section 254(1) of Income tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 06.01.2025. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the Assumption of Jurisdiction under section 147/148 by holding that it is based on definite information/material as well as notice issued u/s 148. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified by upholding an Impugned assessment order as well as earlier CIT-A ORDER DT.18.07.19, without providing reasonable opportunity as nowhere pointed out about service of notice during the Covid period or thereafter. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified by Passing the order u/s 250/254 in summary manner even without disclosing the facts and GOA. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in sustaining the Assumption of Jurisdiction under section 147/148 as no copy of the reasons recorded by the Ld. A.O was provided to the assessee. Moreover, ITA No. 745/Mum/2025 Jagdish Pirchand Jain. A.Y. 2011-12 2 nothing about the service of copy of reasons recorded appears in the body of assessment order. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified by upholding an impugned assessment order is justified and valid as the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 is not based upon the piece of information and no any tangible material was brought on record. 6. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified by upholding the order of Ld. A.O. without appreciating the justification filed by the appellant, towards notice u/s 133(6) if not served by any reasons, no occasion to draw adverse opinion despite the facts no dispute on the evidences filed. 7. Whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified by upholding the additions made by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 24,01,718/- i.e. @12.5% of Purchases as the same are unlawful, on surmises and unjustified and not based on any tangible material/Evidence.T 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that this is second round of appeal before Tribunal. In first round of appeal, the matter was restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate all the issues afresh in order dated 05.03.2020 in ITA No. 5467/Mum/2019. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee could not furnish his submission before ld. CIT(A) and that he may be allowed one more opportunity to contest the case before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for the want of submission by assessee. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that addition in the assessment is made by making disallowance of hundred percent of purchases on the allegation of bogus purchases. The assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed if one more opportunity is allowed to the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he undertakes on ITA No. 745/Mum/2025 Jagdish Pirchand Jain. A.Y. 2011-12 3 behalf of the assessee to more vigilant in future and to make timely compliance before ld. CIT(A). 3. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that assessee was allowed three opportunities to furnish his submission vide notice dated 03.07.2025, 25.09.2024 and 13.11.2024. However, the assessee failed to furnish his submission. Thus, the assessee does not deserve in further leniency when the assessee fail to furnish any submission. In the order dated 05.03.2020 in ITA No. 5467/Mum/2019 which is authored by one of the member of this Bench, still the assessee has not adhered to the direction in the order. In case this bench is of the view that assessee deserve in further opportunity, same may be allowed only on cost. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 06.01.2025. We find that ld. CIT(A) in his order extracted the entire order of this bench in ITA No. 5467/Mum/2019 wherein in para 10 of the order, assessee was directed to appear before ld. CIT(A) and to be more vigilant in attending the hearing. Despite such direction, no compliance was made for the reason best known to the assessee. However, fact remains the same that ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee without adjudicating the merit of the case and uphold the order of his predecessor dated 18.07.2019 without giving his own reasoning. Though the conduct of assessee is not worth appreciable, yet keeping in view the interest ITA No. 745/Mum/2025 Jagdish Pirchand Jain. A.Y. 2011-12 4 of justice and to keep the fact in mind that assessee has to bear the cost of further appeal before this Tribunal on account of cost of litigation as well as appeal fees. We also find that order of ld. CIT(A) is not in consonance with section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act which mandate the ld. CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by stating the point for determining the decision thereon and reasons for such decision. Therefore, the matter is again restored back to the file of CIT(A) but by imposing of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the assessee in Bombay High Court Legal Aid and Advice Committee. Original receipt be filed before this bench, to placed in the appeal folder. The assessee is again directed not to make any default in making timely compliance before ld. CIT(A). Needless to direct that before passing of order, the ld. CIT(A) shall allow fair and reasonable opportunity to the assesse. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 21.04.2025 Biswajit, Sr. P.S. Copy to: ITA No. 745/Mum/2025 Jagdish Pirchand Jain. A.Y. 2011-12 5 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT, 4. The DR By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai "