M/S. HEMAL READYMIX CONCRETE,MUMBAI V. ITO WD 2(3), THANE

ITA 6978/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Hemal Readymix Concrete, represented by Mr. Jagannath Temkar, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had dismissed their earlier appeal concerning an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The original assessment had made significant additions under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to a substantial assessed income against a reported loss. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, noting the absence of submissions from the Assessee. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessee had indeed submitted documents, albeit after the hearing date, and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315399 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Other Referred Cases: CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6978/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-2013) M/s. Hemal Readymix Concrete Mr. Jagannath Temkar, 504/A, Radheja Green Co-op Hsg. Soc., Kulupwadi, Borivali East Mumbai – 400 066. Maharashtra. [PAN:AAFFH6026C] .…………. Appellant Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Mumbai Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West, Thane – 400604. Maharashtra. Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : None Shri Hemanshu Joshi Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 24.02.2025 13.05.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 21/11/2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2015, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an order u/s. 250 dismissing all ground of appeal filed by the Appellant.” ITA No.6978/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2012-2013 2 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf of the Assessee. We have heard Learned Departmental Representative and have perused the material on record. 4. We find that in the present case Assessment was framed on the Assessee under Section 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2015. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment at assessed income of INR.1,18,07,390/- against returned loss of INR.12,82,133/- after making aggregate addition of INR.1,30,89,521/- under Section 69C of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order, dated 21/11/2024. As a result, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that Assessee processed ex-parte, since Assessee had failed to comply with the notice of hearing dated 24/08/2019, 10/02/2021, 15/07/2024 and 14/10/2024 issued by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has recorded that no submissions were filed on behalf of the Assessee. However, on perusal of the statement of facts/submissions filed by the Assessee along with the memorandum of appeal before the Tribunal, we find that the Assessee has stated that the Assessee had filed written submissions on 07/11/2024 (Acknowledgement No.684826561071124), 20/11/2024 (Acknowledge No.719084371201124) and 21/11/2024 (Acknowledge No.720691611211124). On perusal of record we note that the last notice of hearing was issued on 14/10/2024 fixing the date of hearing on 29/10/2024. All the three submissions were filed by the Assessee after the aforesaid date fixed for hearing, however, before the impugned order was passed on 21/11/2024. On perusal of the statement of facts filed before the CIT(A), we find that the Assessee had contended that the addition of INR.1,30,89,521/- was made on account of difference in the balance confirmations received with the ITA No.6978/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2012-2013 3 sundry creditors and the figures recorded in the balance sheet for the relevant previous year. It was explained that the Assessee had made purchase and sale from the same parties resulting in the difference in fugues reported in the balance sheet and the confirmations received. This aspect was not taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer while making the addition by placing reliance upon the account confirmations received from sundry creditors. However, no finding has been returned by the CIT(A) on this issue. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on account of non- prosecution by observing that the Assessee has chosen not to make any submissions in support of the ground of appeal and therefore, the Assessee does not wish to press any of the ground raised before the CIT(A). Thus, the CIT(A) has not dealt with the grounds raised by the Assessee on merits. Whereas, irrespective of the non- appearance of an assessee before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) was required to deal with the issue raised by the Assessee on merits in view of the provisions contained in Section 250(6) of the Act. [CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) 25/04/2016]. 6. Given the facts and circumstances of the present case as narrated hereinabove, we set-aside the impugned order, dated 21/11/2024, passed the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal on merits as per law after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee has directed to cooperate in the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and not to seek unnecessary adjournments. Further, the Assessee is also directed to file all the relevant submissions/documents/details on which the Assessee wishes to place reliance before the CIT(A) forthwith on receiving notice of hearing. It is clarified that in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance or file relevant documents/details/submission, the CIT(A) would be at liberty to ITA No.6978/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2012-2013 4 adjudicate the appeal on merits on the basis of material on record. 7. In terms of the aforesaid, the Ground raised by the Assessee as well as the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 13.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 13.05.2025 Milan,LDC आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "