MR. NITESH SHAH ,MUMBAI V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4176/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Nitesh Shah, who appealed against the penalty order for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The initial penalty was imposed following a reassessment that added a significant amount to the declared income due to non-genuine purchases. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte after multiple non-responses from the assessee. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A) did not adequately discuss the merits of the case in the impugned order and remitted the matter back for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26452 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV KUMAR SAHU
• Section: 147; 143(3); 250; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4176/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Mr. Nitesh Shah Shop no.26, Nanubai Desai road khetwadi, 400004. Vs. The Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4) Piramac chambers lalbang Mumbai. PAN/GIR No. AAZPS4489E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri. Rajeev Kumar Sahu, CIT DR Date of Hearing 26/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 passed in Appeal no. CIT (A), Mumbai– 30/10030/2019–20 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income– tax(Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] u/s. 250 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"Act\"] for the Assessment year [A.Y.] 2009-10, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte against the penalty order ITA no. 4176/MUM/2024 Mr. Nitesh Shah 2 dated 29.03.2019 passed u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2. The brief facts under appeal state that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Ferrous and Non-ferrous Metals under the name and style of proprietorship concern M/s. Virami Steel. The appellant has filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 29.09.2009, declaring total income at Rs.3,56,976/-. Thereafter, the case was re-opened u/s. 147 of the Act. The assessing officer passed the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 16.03.2015 and assessed the income of Rs. 14,61,299/- after making addition of Rs. 11,04,323/- on account of non-genuine purchases. The proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(C) of the Act were separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income chargeable to tax and learned assessing officer levied penalty of Rs. 2,56,773/- vide penalty order dated 29.03.2019 passed u/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal against the penalty order before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex-parte. 4. Appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that the income tax authority has erred in levying the said penalty. 5. None responded for the assessee. Heard learned DR and perused the records. ITA no. 4176/MUM/2024 Mr. Nitesh Shah 3 6. Learned DR has submitted that assessee was provided sufficient opportunity of hearing by learned CIT(A) but for no avail. Learned DR has supported impugned order. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, we notice that learned CIT(A) has afforded various opportunities of hearing to the assessee on 15.09.2021, 30.08.2022, 17.03.2023, 12.06.2023, 27.06.2023, 04.07.2023, 26.07.2023 and 28.05.2024 but for no avail. It is an accepted fact that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. The learned CIT(A) was compelled to pass ex-parte impugned order in such circumstances. However, it is further noticed the impugned order is not based on any substantial discussion on the merits, whereas learned CIT(A) was expected to state the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for the decision as provided u/s. 250(6) of the Act. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it just and appropriate to afford an opportunity to the assessee and remit the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. We further direct the assessee to be diligent and cooperative in attending the hearings and making submissions before the learned CIT(A) for the expeditious and effective disposal. Assessee should refrain from seeking any adjournment but for compelling and unavoidable circumstances. Needless to say that learned CIT(A) shall ensure the observance of the principles of natural justice. It is made clear that we have not made any ITA no. 4176/MUM/2024 Mr. Nitesh Shah 4 observation in respect of the merits of the case. The appeal is liable to be allowed accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in above terms for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 07.06.2024 is set aside. The case is restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28.11.2024. Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 28/11/2024 Anandi Nambi, Steno Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// "