RIDDHI SIDDHI ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4357/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises, which was assessed for the year 2012-13 based on information indicating substantial cash transactions. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, issuing a notice under section 148 on 22.03.2019, due to the absence of a filed return for the relevant assessment year and the firm's listing as a non-filer. The ITO assessed the income based on a presumed turnover and applied a standard rate, leading to an appeal by the assessee. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance. However, the tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a re-hearing, considering the firm's dissolution and the inaccessibility of the notice to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26235 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: MAMTA NARENDRA KHOLIYA
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘H(SMC)’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4357/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises Flat No. 705, Vastulabh CHS Ltd., Jija Mata Road, Pump House, Andheri East, Mumbai Suburban, Chakal MIDC, Mumbai-400093. PAN: AAJFR 5008 G vs ITO 41 (2)(4), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Smt. Mamta Narendra Kholiya, CA Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), Addl/JCIT(A)-12, Delhi. 2 Fact in brief is that the assessing officer received information on the NMS portal of ITD system that the assessee had made cash transactions during the period relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22.03.2019. The assessee had not filed return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 and name of the assessee was appearing in the list of non-filers for the F.Y. 2011- 12. As per the information available for the ITS/AIR details for F.Y. 2011-12 the assessee had paid cash for purchase of bank drafts or banker’s cheque aggregating Rs. 1,00,000/- or more to ITA No.4357/Mum/2024 Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises A.Y. 2012-13 2 the amount of Rs. 4,59,048/-. As per the AIR information, it was also noticed that assessee had deposited cash to the amount of Rs. 1,28,37,000/- during the year under consideration. The assessee failed to make compliance before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, therefore, assessment was finalized u/s 144 of the Act. After considering the total turnover of the assessee, the assessing officer has computed income @ 8% of turnover of Rs. 28,37,048/- which comes to Rs. 10,26,964/- as income from business and profession. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has not made any compliance, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Before us, the ld. Counsel submitted that assessee firm was dissolved on 13.04.2010 on account of retirement of one of the partner of the partnership firm with effect from 31.12.2009. Therefore, the remaining partners has discontinued the business in the name of the assessee firm therefore notice of hearing issued by the ld. CIT(A) was not accessible to the assessee. He further submitted that Savings Bank Account in which the transaction of Rs. 1,28,37,048/- was reported infact held by the proprietorship firm under the name Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises and not by the partnership firm. Under the above circumstances, the ld. counsel requested to provide opportunity to the assessee at the level of First Appellate Authority for deciding the case of the assessee on merit after considering the relevant supporting details and submission. ITA No.4357/Mum/2024 Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises A.Y. 2012-13 3 5. In the light of above facts and circumstances and perusal of material placed on record, we find there is a bonafide reasons for not making compliance before the First Appellate Authority, therefore, we consider it appropriate to restore the case of the assessee to the file of ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merit in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act after providing three more opportunities to the assessee to make submission on the points raised. The assessee is also directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.01.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai: 07.01.2025 Biswajit, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent: 3. The CIT, 4. The DR . //True Copy// [ By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai "