SHRI. NIZAMUDDIN MANSOORALI SAYANI,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD-17(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1973/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Nizamuddin Mansoorali Sayani, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was passed ex parte due to the non-appearance of the assessee. The original assessment was completed on a best judgment basis as the assessee failed to provide necessary documents during the assessment proceedings. The assessee, who had migrated to Dubai, did not respond to notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the representation by the assessee's lawyer, decided to grant another opportunity for the assessee to present his case and documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470946 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA H. PANDE
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER G. DALAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 147; 144; 142(1); 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1973/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Nizamuddin Mansoorali Sayani, B Block, 4th Floor, Room No.75,76,77, Bundeali Building, Haji Bachu Ali Road, Off. S.V.P. Road, Dongri Mumbai – 400009 PAN : ASYPS9959C ............... Appellant v/s ITO, Ward-17(2)(4), Mumbai. ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sameer G. Dalal Revenue by : Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 29/01/2025 Date of Order - 30/01/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 25/03/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - ITA No.1973/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) 2 “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submission of appellant and has not given reasonable opportunity to explain the case. It is respectfully submitted that business of the appellant was mostly in cash and has made cash deposit in bank and made payment of expenses. Without prejudice to what is stated above, if addition has to be sustained, it should be reasonable and not total amount of cash deposited and credit card payment. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing claim of appellant regarding commodity income at 1% which was actually loss. It is respectfully submitted that reasonable opportunity was not given to explain the case.” 3. It is evident from the record that the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. We further find that even during the assessment proceedings, the assessee could not produce the documents as sought by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) and therefore the assessment was completed on the best judgment basis under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act on the basis of the material available on record. As per the assessee, he was staying in a tenanted premises, which he handed over to the landlord and migrated to Dubai in the year 2011-12 and thus could not respond to the notice issued under section 148 and also could not comply with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. We find that no details were also submitted before the learned CIT(A) and the additions made by the AO were affirmed vide impugned order. In the present appeal before us, the assessee is duly represented by the learned Authorized Representative and wishes to pursue the litigation against the addition made by the AO. 4. In the facts and circumstances as noted above, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee be granted one more opportunity to represent his case on merits and produce all the ITA No.1973/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) 3 documents in support of his claim. Since in the present case, the assessee neither appeared before the AO nor before the learned CIT(A), we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merits after considering all the details/submissions as may be filed by the assessee and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and furnish all the details as may be sought by the AO for complete adjudication. As the matter is being restored to the jurisdictional AO for adjudication on merits, the other grievance raised by the assessee in the present appeal does not call for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/01/2025 Sd/- BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30/01/2025 Prabhat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai "