MAMRAJI NEMCHAND PAREEK,KERALA V. NON CORP ITO WARD 1 (3), COCHIN

ITA 715/COCH/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mamraji Nemchand Pareek, who runs a proprietary concern and engaged in importing printers and accessories during the assessment year 2016-17. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) treated 16 transactions as imports based on customs duty documents, while the assessee contended only 10 transactions occurred, with the additional six related to compensating defective goods. The CIT(A) initially dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-communication from the auditor about the hearing notices. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, providing a different email ID for communication. The ITAT found the dismissal by the CIT(A) to be premature and set aside the order, remitting the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126665 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA LAL; SNR
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURAV ROHATGI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Dismissed; Statistical purposes; Transactions; Form 3
• Section: 143(3); 69B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 715/Coch/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mamraji Nemchand Pareek, Door No. 41/909, Near St. Marys Church, Pullepady Road, Ernakulam – 682 018. PAN: ACFPN8349A Vs. Non Corp ITO, Ward 1 (3), Cochin. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Saurav Rohatgi, CA Revenue by : Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. AR Date of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23-04-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 13/09/2023 in respect of the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running a proprietary concern and imported the printers and its accessories. During the relevant year, the assessee had effected 10 transactions. The import documents shows that the assessee had effected 16 transactions. The Page 2 of 3 ITA No. 715/Coch/2024 excess six transactions relates to the imports made to compensate the defective goods for which the customs duty was paid by the ultimate buyers. The assessing officer treated the 16 transactions as imports and based on the customs duty paid by them, had estimated the income and to that effect the assessment order was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act treating the said income as unexplained income u/s. 69B of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and gave an email ID of the auditor but the auditor had not communicated about the hearing notices sent by the Ld.CIT(A) and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal and gave a different email ID in Form 36. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that all the details were available with the assessee to explain the fact that there were no 16 transactions as alleged by the AO but only 10 transactions were effected by the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that the balance is for replacing the defective goods already supplied by the assessee and explained that since the commodities were imported, automatically the customs duty ought to have been paid whether the cost of the materials was paid or not. Moreover, the Ld.AR contended that because of some confusion, the assessee could not be able to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) in order to explain the details and prayed one more opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. The Ld.DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. On the face of the appeal order, it is seen that it is an ex-parte order and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) had no opportunity to verify the details submitted by the assessee. We have also considered the submission made Page 3 of 3 ITA No. 715/Coch/2024 by the Ld.AR and satisfy ourselves that the non-appearance is not wilful on the part of the assessee and in that circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the same to the file of the Ld.CIT(A), to decide the same afresh after receiving the documents to be filed by the assessee. It is needless to say that an opportunity of being heard may also be granted to the assessee before deciding the appeal by one way or other. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin, Dated, the 23rd April, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Cochin "