MR. PIYUSH C SAMPAT ,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -22(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3641/MUM/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mr. Piyush C. Sampat against the order of the Additional Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Lucknow, which was passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. The primary contention in the appeal was the ex parte nature of the order passed by the CIT(A), which the appellant argued was unjust as it did not address the merits of the case. The original assessment by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai, involved reopening the case based on information about fictitious losses claimed by the assessee through dubious Client Code Modification. The Tribunal found the initial dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution to be insufficiently just, leading to the decision to remand the case back for a thorough examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716467 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASIF KAR MALI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV KHANDELWAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 3641/MUM/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) Mr. Piyush C. Sampat A-402, Jeevan Bharat CHS, Plot No. 487, 17th Road, Khar West, Mumbai 400052 v/s. बिाम Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 22(2), Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAKPS7748H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA (Virtually Present) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Asif Karmali (SR DR) स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Lucknow [CIT(A)] dated 27.03.2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year: 2010-2011. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal. “1. The Additional Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Addi CIT(A)) erred in framing an ex parte order. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Addl CIT(A) ought not to have passed an ex parte order. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No. 3641/Mum/2025 AY 2010-11 Mr. Piyush C. Sampat 2. The Addl CIT(A) erred in not deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Addl CIT(A) ought to have decided the following grounds of appeal on merits - \"1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 22(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued under section 148 is bad in law and consequently, the assessment needs to be quashed. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in disallowing loss Rs 15.65.402 incurred on various transactions on the ground that the said loss is bogus and fictitiously created through client code modification. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought not to have disallowed the impugned loss inasmuch as the Assessing Officer, before making the said disallowance, has not appreciated the facts in its entirety, and as such, the disallowance is not warranted. 3. The Assessing Officer erred in making the impugned disallowance and framing the impugned order in violation and utter disregard to the principles of natural Justice. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought to have followed the principles of natural justice and, having not followed, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and needs to be quashed.\" The appellant craves leave to add, to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return declaring NIL income for AY 2010-11. Return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation wing regarding fictitious losses booked by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 15,65,402/- by taking benefit of dubious Client Code Modification (CCM). The assessment was completed by disallowing the loss of Rs. 15,65,402/- claimed by the assessee and the income was assessed at NIL, vide Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No. 3641/Mum/2025 AY 2010-11 Mr. Piyush C. Sampat order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 26.12.2016. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Despite several notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any compliance and therefore, the appeal was dismissed ex-parte on account of non- prosecution. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has now filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available before us. Since the order of Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the same for fresh adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A). Needless to add, adequate opportunity shall be provided to the assessee and the assessee is also directed make requisite compliance before Ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- AMIT SHUKLA RENU JAUHRI (न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 22.08.2025 दिव्य रमेश न ुंिग वकर/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No. 3641/Mum/2025 AY 2010-11 Mr. Piyush C. Sampat सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "