NOVELTY POWER & INFRATEC LIMITED,MUMBAI V. DCIT-7(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2108/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Novelty Power & Infratec Limited, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, concerning additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The additions were made on account of bogus purchases. The initial appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance and lack of submissions from the Assessee. The Tribunal, referencing a judgment by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, found that the Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and remanded the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777343 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEYAQAT ALI AAFAQUI; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JAIN; LD
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 144; 69C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “B” BENCH :: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2108/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Novelty Power & Infratec Limited, Plot No.22, Dargah Street, Mahim, Maharashtra PAN: AACCN 0679 D Vs. DICT-7(1)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28/01/2025 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (in short, ‘Ld. Commissioner’) u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2009-10. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2108/MUM/2025 (Novelty Power & Infratec Ltd.) 2 2. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 30/03/2015 u/sec. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, has made the additions of Rs. 10,26,000/- and Rs. 7,52,53,265/- on account of bogus purchases u/sec. 69C of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents. Thus, the Ld. Commissioner by considering the fact that the Assessee has failed to substantiate its claim with supporting documentary evidence and therefore the grievance raised by the Assessee, could not be verified, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee and affirmed the additions made by the Ld. AO, without going into the merits of the case. 4. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As observed above, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, which is at all not permissible in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under: - “This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.\" Hence, this Court, by respectfully following the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, is inclined to set aside Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2108/MUM/2025 (Novelty Power & Infratec Ltd.) 3 the impugned order and consequently remanding the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision on merits, suffice to say by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 5. Thus, the case is remanded to the file of Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh. 6. The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant submissions/ documents as would be essentially required for proper and just decision of the case. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRABHASH SHANKAR) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER vr/- Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai. The DR, ITAT, Mumbai ‘B’ Bench //True Copy// By Order Dy./Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "