REAL VALUE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. ITO,WARD-21(1), DELHI

ITA 4270/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Real Value Foods Private Limited appealing against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2019-20. The appeals were consolidated due to interconnected issues, primarily concerning the confirmation of reassessment orders which included substantial additions related to bogus purchases and unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the handling of the assessee's appeals by the CIT(A), particularly the lack of proper notice and consideration of adjournment requests, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 38681 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RUCHESH SINHA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 4267, 4268, 4269 & 4270/Del/2024 Asstt. Years : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/S REAL VALUE FOODS PRIVATE VS. ITO, WARD 21(1), LIMITED, NEW DELHI 204 B-9, WASON CHAMBERS, MODEL TOWN, NEW DELHI -9 (PAN: AAACR6000J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2025 ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the respective orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. Since the issues are inter-connected, therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, by dealing with the facts of the ITA No. 4269/Del/2024 (2018- 19) and the decision thereof will also apply mutatis mutandis to other three assessment years viz. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20. 2. The grounds raised in the following assessment years read as under:- 2 | P a g e Grounds raised in AY 2016-17 Grounds raised in AY 2017-18 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an exparte order, without considering that in this case, there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to, not to, reply to the notices of hearing. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reassessment order, wherein an addition of Rs. 2,20,42,510/- in respect of bogus purchases has been made. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the reassessment order has even not considered, much less commented on the various grounds of appeal pertaining to reassessment proceedings and also on merits which is clearly reproduced in its order. 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an exparte order, without considering that in this case, there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to, not to, reply to the notices of hearing. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reassessment order, wherein an addition of Rs. 4957760/- in respect of bogus purchases and Rs. 75,00,978/- in respect of additions made u/s. 68 has been made. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the reassessment order has even not considered, much less commented on the various grounds of appeal pertaining to reassessment proceedings and also on merits which is clearly reproduced in its order. Grounds raised in AY 2018-19 Grounds raised in AY 2019-20 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an exparte order, without considering that in this case, there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to, not to, reply to the notices of hearing. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reassessment order, wherein an addition of 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing an exparte order, without considering that in this case, there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to, not to, reply to the notices of hearing. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the reassessment order, wherein an addition 3 | P a g e Rs. 1,09,99,037/- in respect of bogus purchases has been made. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the reassessment order has even not considered, much less commented on the various grounds of appeal pertaining to reassessment proceedings and also on merits which is clearly reproduced in its order. of Rs. 15,96,000/- in respect of bogus purchases. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming the reassessment order has even not considered, much less commented on the various grounds of appeal pertaining to reassessment proceedings and also on merits which is clearly reproduced in its order. 3. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal relating to assessment year 2018-19 (ITA No. 4269/Del/2024). The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed to the mistake of the Counsel. Upon hearing both the parties, we condone the delay in dispute. 4. In these cases, separate assessment orders were passed, by making the following additions: AY 2016-17 Addition of Rs. 2,08,81,662/-on account of variation in bogus purchases. AY 2017-18 (i) Addition of Rs. 75,00,978/- on account of variation in respect of additions made u/s. 68 of the Act and, (ii) Addition of Rs. 49,57,760/- on account of variation in respect of bogus purchases. AY 2018-19 Addition of Rs. 1,09,99,037/- on account of variation in respect of bogus purchases. AY 2019-20 Addition of Rs. 15,96,000/- on account of variation in respect of bogus purchases. 5. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee has not made compliances and on last occasion he had sought adjournment. He proceeded to 4 | P a g e dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Against the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assesse pleaded that notice in this case was issued by the CIT(A) on the portal only and notice was not received by the assessee. He further submitted that adjournment request was not considered. Accordingly, he prayed that the an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to canvass his case properly before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR did not have any objection to the proposition made by the Ld. AR. 7. After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 8. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03.02.2025. SD/- SD/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "