TEAMASIA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. ITO WARD 25(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 3683/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474919 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAPNA BHATIA
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR BINDAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Bogus purchase; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 68; 20

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3683/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Teamasia Marketing Private Limited 5952-53/3, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi PAN No.AACCT 4957E Vs. ITO Ward- 25 (1) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA Ms. Rinky Sharma, ITP Respondent by Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR Date of hearing: 29/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] vide order dated 27.09.2023 pertaining to A.Y. 2021-22 arises out of the assessment order 2 dated 26.12.2022 under section 143(3) /144B of the IT Act, 1961 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’]. 2. The appeal is time barred by 20 days. The assessee has filed an application with affidavit to condone the delay, grounds are sufficient the application is allowed and delay is condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing on merit. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Company and carrying on business of trading of PU Leather and synthetic leather at Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The assessee has e- fled his return of income on 14/03/2022 declaring total income at Rs.1579630- for A.Y. 2021-2022 and return of income on. Notices u/s 143(2) was issued on 28/06/2022 for the reason Assessee has made substantial purchases from suppliers who are either non filers or have filed non business ITR. 4. The assessment was completed under faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Accordingly notices u/s 142(1) was issued by Assessment Unit Verification Unit Technical Unit Review Unit Income Tax Department on 21/07/2022. The ld. Income tax officer has passed the Assessment order U/s 143(3) of the Act and made the ad-hoc addition on account of bogus purchases of 3 Rs.6,76,56,035/-. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld CIT(A) who vide his order dated 27-09-2023 dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds (ITA No.3683/Del/2023):- 1.Adhoc Addition on account of bogus purchases of Rs.6,76,56,035/- The assessing officer erred in law and in facts and circumstances of the case and made an Adhoc Addition on account of bogus purchases ofRs.6,76,56,023/-. The appellant has claimed purchases pertaining to Rs.29,64,78,068/- in their profit and loss. However, the learned AO has erred in DISALLOWING purchases made from certain specific suppliers. The assessee has made purchase from genuine suppliers. The list of parties from whom the Purchases has been made during the year was submitted. The amount of addition of bogus purchases of Rs.67,656,035/- comprises of purchase of Rs.6,63,89,395/- and Sale of Rs.12,66,640/-. All the relevant documents were provided like address of the Parties to the verification team. The AO Wrongly claimed that the quality and quantity details were not mentioned in the invoices submitted. Some of the parties submitted their confirmation of account but that was not considered by the AO and the AO disallowed the 4 purchases. Such disallowance is bad in law and should be deleted. 2.Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAD of the Act The Assessing Officer erred in law and in facts and circumstances of the case and initiated separate Penalty Proceedings under section 271AAD of the act for unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 is part of total income and failed to appreciate that there was no unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 as the Purchases and sales are from genuine parties. 6. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the counsel representing the company before the income tax authorities fell sick due to typhoid fever during the months of August and September and could not check the emails on the income tax web portal of the assessee company. He has further submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has passed the order in non-compliance. 7. The Ld. DR has submitted the during the appellate proceedings five notices were issued but the assessee has not appeared before the Ld CIT(A). He has further submitted that Ld CIT(A) has passed the order on merits. 8. We have heard the rival arguments and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts of the cases there are no 5 denial that NFAC has decided the appeal ex-parte because the ld AR of the assessee has not attended the proceedings due to illness. 9. We deem it fit to restore the appeal to the files of the Ld CIT(A). The Ld CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee after service of proper notice. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.10.2024. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:-03.10.2024 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "