SNOWCEM PAINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

ITA 2001/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Snowcem Paints Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal was initially dismissed in limine by the ld.CIT(A) due to being barred by limitation. The assessee argued that the delay was due to a change in email communication following a takeover by M/s. Saurashtra Cements Limited, which led to non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and decided to set aside the impugned order, restoring the matter to the ld.CIT(A) for a detailed examination of the issues.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717501 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal, PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATHAMESH BORKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Unexplained expenditure; Bogus purchase; Reopening of assessment; Bogus

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2001/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Snowcem Paints Private Limited, Basement, Commercial Union House 9, Wallace Street, Fort Mumbai 400 001, Maharashtra PAN: AAJCS0425R Vs. Income Tax Officer PNE-C-(21)(1), Nashik/ ACIT, Circle-1, Nashik Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 26.07.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 11.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s144 r.w.s144B of the Act. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order is exparte and appeal has been dismissed in limine being barred by limitation. He submitted that even the proceedings before the ld. Assessing Officer is also exparte. Reason for non-appearance before the lower authorities was on account of the assessee being taken over by M/s. Saurashtra Cements Limited as a going concern and the new email ids were used and therefore notices issued on the old e-mail id could not Appellant by : Shri Prathamesh Borkar Respondent by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2001/PUN/2024 Snowcem Paints Private Limited 2 be accessed. He further submitted that the assessee has raised grounds challenging the reopening of assessment proceedings and the validity of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 3. On the other hand, ld. Department submitted that the matter needs to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of all the issues. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and Nil income declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 furnished on 27.11.2014. Based on the information about alleged bogus purchases of Rs.2,54,76,525/- from Manik Genetics (P) Ltd. assessee was issued notice u/s.148 of the Act but there was no compliance. Again in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022 notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act. Still there was no compliance and ld. Assessing Officer concluded the re- assessment proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act vide order dated 11.05.2023 making addition u/s.69C of the Act for unexplained expenditure at Rs.2,54,76,525/- and assessed the income accordingly. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but the same was barred by limitation as there was delay of approximately 5 months. As per the impugned order, the assessee has not forwarded any reason for the delay. 6. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the running business of the assessee was transferred on slump sale basis to M/s. Saurashtra Cements Limited, registered Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2001/PUN/2024 Snowcem Paints Private Limited 3 address of the company was transferred and new email ids were used. For this reason, the assessee was not aware of the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act as well as passing of the assessment order which resulted in delay in filing of the appeal. He further submitted that assessee failed to place any evidence to show that whether the running business of the assessee being transferred on slump sale basis to M/s. Saurashtra Cements Limited was intimated to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under whom the assessee’s PAN was registered. In absence of any such information, notice issued u/s.148 of the Act seems to have not complied with. 7. However, considering the fact that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and has dismissed the appeal in limine without dealing with the issues raised in the appeal, we taking note of the reasons stated before us that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) in time, taking liberal approach and also considering that assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal belatedly, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A) and deem it proper to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. We therefore set aside the impugned order and restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2001/PUN/2024 Snowcem Paints Private Limited 4 vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 14th day of August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 14th August, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "