M/S. G.K ENGINEERING WORKS ,MUMBAI V. ITO. WARD, 23(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 948/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. G.K. Engineering Works, the Assessee, who appealed against the order of the NFAC which affirmed the Assessing Officer's (AO) decision. The AO had added Rs. 2,00,000 to the Assessee's income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and denied a deduction claimed under section 80C. The Assessee's initial appeal was dismissed due to non-submission of required documents and explanations, leading to the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing with specific conditions to ensure compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 313122 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR SINHA; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKASH WAGHERA; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 144; 80C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.948/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. G.K. Engineering Works, Gala No.41, Opp. Tirupati Indl Estate, Village Road, Subhash Nagar, Bhandup (W), Maharashtra – 400 078 PAN: AAFFG2362L Vs. Income Tax Department, Ward-23(1)(1), Matru Mandir, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Prakash Waghera, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 09.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.12.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12. ITA No.948/M/2025 M/s. G.K. Engineering Works 2 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 27.11.2018 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, has made the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act and added the same to the income of the Assessee and also not allowed any deduction claimed u/s 80C of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the assessment order making the aforesaid addition and not allowing the deduction claim u/s 80C of the Act, before the Ld. Commissioner, by filing first appeal, however, in spite of affording various opportunities, failed to file any written submissions along with supporting documents. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner while fixing the case for hearing on dated 03.12.2024 specifically mentioned that “in case no submission/information/document is/are received within the stipulated time period, it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this matter and the Department may proceed ahead based on material available on record.” However, the Assessee still failed to comply with such notice and therefore the Ld. Commissioner by drawing presumption “that the Assessee has either nothing to explain in this regard or is not interested to continue with the appellate proceedings and thus has no objection regarding addition made by the AO in the impugned assessment order”, ultimately affirmed the decision of the AO. ITA No.948/M/2025 M/s. G.K. Engineering Works 3 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Tribunal and raised various contentions qua non-complying with the notices issued by the Ld. Commissioner, including that the Assessee never received any notice issued by the Ld. Commissioner. On the contrary, the Ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and supported the impugned order. 5. Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the conduct of the Assessee is not up to mark and therefore the Assessee deserves no leniency, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality, as the issue involved in this case remained to be adjudicated in its right perspective and proper manner, specifically in the absence of relevant reply/document, which the Assessee has failed to file and therefore for just and proper decision of the case and substantial justice, this Court is inclined to offer one more last and final opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claim before the Ld. Commissioner, however, subject to deposit of Rs.5500/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from this order. Thus the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee subject to deposit of Rs.5,500/- as mentioned above. ITA No.948/M/2025 M/s. G.K. Engineering Works 4 6. The Assessee is also directed to co-operate with the appellate proceedings and file the relevant reply/documents, as would be essentially required by the Ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the issues involved. In case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.04.2025. Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai. "