MILIND MADHUKAR MORE,MUMBAI V. ITO - WARD 41(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4738/MUM/2025

AI Insights

Milind Madhukar More, a civil contractor, appealed against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer, which involved the reopening of his assessment for the Assessment Year 2019-20 under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO had added Rs. 59,67,890 to the assessee's income, alleging these were bogus purchases from M/s. Saison Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd., a company implicated in providing fake invoices. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not provided sufficient opportunity to the assessee before passing their orders and thus restored the matter to the AO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785910 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH JAIN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4738/MUM/2025 (A.Y.2019-20) Milind Madhukar More 304, Janseva, Hariyali Village, Navjivan Nagar, Mumbai-400083. Vs. ITO- Ward 41(2)(3) Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C- 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. \u0001थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:ANUPM8452F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Hitesh Jain Respondent by : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan- Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30.05.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2019-20. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA NO. 4738/mum/2025. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows: “1. The Hon. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.O. are not justified in passing the appellate order and assessment order without giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant. 2. The Ld. AO erred in reopening the assessment U/S. 148. 3. The Ld. AO failed to judiciously consider the submissions made by the appellant. 4. The Ld. A.O. is not justified in making the addition of Rs.59,67,890/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Ld. A.O. is not justified in passing the assessment order without providing the full copy of the statement recorded of third party.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of civil contractor and filed his return for A.Y. 2019-20 declaring total income of Rs. 40,58,350/-. Subsequently, a search was conducted in the case of M/s. Saison Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was found that the company was involved in providing fake/bogus invoices to various beneficiaries. On the basis of incriminating material found and seized, it was seen that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries. Accordingly, ld. AO reopened his case and issued notice u/s. 148 on 20.04.2023. As the assessee did not file any reply/ return in response ot the notice, ld. AO issued a show-cause notice regarding bogus purchases from M/s. Saison Trade and Industry Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 59,67,890/-. Thereafter, ld. AO passed an order u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B dated 02.03.2025 assessing the total income at Rs. 1,00,26,240/- after adding the bogus purchases to the returned income. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA NO. 4738/mum/2025. 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 30.05.2025, ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. AR has submitted that ld. AO and ld. CIT(A) did not give sufficient opportunity to the assessee before passing the ex-parte orders. He has, therefore, requested for restoring the matter to ld. AO for proper verification of the alleged bogus purchases. Ld. DR has not objected to the abovesaid proposition. 5. After hearing the rival submissions, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to ld. AO for fresh decision on merits after giving proper opportunity to the assessee, who is also directed to make requisite compliance. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in Open Court on 31.10.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (RENU JAUHRI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: Mumbai Date 31.10.2025 Anandi.Nambi/STENO आदेश की \u0015ितिलिप अ\u001aेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\b / The Appellant 2. थ\b / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0011 / CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA NO. 4738/mum/2025. 5. गाड\u001b फाईल / Guard file. स ािपत ित //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "