SAGAR SHOPPING DEVELOPERS,SANTACRUZ EAST, MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, MUMBAI

ITA 1793/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sagar Shopping Developers, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which had dismissed their earlier appeal due to non-compliance with notices. The original assessment was reopened based on information about bogus accommodation entries from M/s. Surya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., leading to an addition of Rs. 65,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessee's representative was unable to comply due to personal difficulties, and thus, in the interest of justice, decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 706146 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA S. MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIRUDH DAVE INSTRUCTED BY PIYUSH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Accommodation entries; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 69; 2

Judgement Text

" |आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई| IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सुं./ITA No. 1793/MUM/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sagar Shopping Developers Sagar Avenue 2, Opposite J. N. road, Near Vikola Bridge, Santacruz East, Mumba, Maharashtra- 400055 v/s. बिाम DCIT Piramal Chambers, Dr. SS Road Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AADFS1422M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri Anirudh Dave (instructed by Piyush Agarwal) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR. स िवाई की िारीख / Date of Hearing 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 30.01.2025 passed u/s. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 1793/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Sagar Shopping Developers 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B passed by the A.O. is grossly erroneous, unjustified and bad in law and is therefore liable to be quashed. 2.0 That on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the A.O. grossly erred in considering repayment of loan to M/s. Surya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. as unexplained investments u/s. 69.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm filed its return declaring nil income for AY 2016-17. On the basis of information received from the Investigating Wing regarding bogus accommodation entries taken by the assessee from M/s. Surya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., the case was reopened, and a notice u/s 148 was issued. The assessment was completed vide order dated 31.05.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act at an income of Rs. 65,00,000/- after making addition on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since no compliance was made by the assessee to various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.01.2025. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 1793/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Sagar Shopping Developers 6. At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee was unable to make any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A), as the authorised representative, was undergoing personal difficulties. He has therefore requested that the matter may be restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition. 7. In the interest of justice, we hereby set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) with directions to decide the appeal afresh on merits after providing due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to make requisite compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI RENU JAUHRI (न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 30.06.2025 अननक ेत स ुंह र जपूत/ 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. P a g e | 4 ITA No. 1793/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Sagar Shopping Developers सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "