UDAYLAL HIRALAL JAIN,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 20(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6306/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Udaylal Hiralal Jain against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Income-tax Act for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The primary contention of the assessee was that the reassessment was conducted without waiting for the statutory period after serving the order disposing of the appellant's objection, and was based merely on surmises and conjectures without any tangible material. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee in previous hearings. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the principles of natural justice, decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 33282 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIY (2008) 296 (TR 90 (Bombay)), Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6306/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Udaylal Hiralal Jain Shop No.8, BMC Bldg., R A Kidwai, Wadala, Mumbai – 400 031 (PAN : AAAPJ5907H) Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward – 20(3)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Shri Shashank Mehta, CA Revenue : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.03.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070528317(1), dated 21.11.2024, passed against the assessment order by National Faceless Appeals Centre, Delhi, u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 29.03.2022 for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds taken by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT (Appeals has erred in upholding the action of the ld. Assessing Officer of proceeding with reassessment proceedings without waiting for the statutory period of four week, after serving of order disposing of the appellant's objection on initiation of reassessment proceedings, thereby violating the law laid down by Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIY (2008) 296 (TR 90 (Bombay). 2 ITA No.6306/MUM/2024 Udaylal Hiralal Jain, AY 2016-17 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred it upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of issuing notice u/s.148 on merely on surmises and conjectures merely on the basis of information received from ADIT(Inv.) without any independent application of mind. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) CIT (Appeals) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 merely on surmises and conjectures without being in possession of any tangible material 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Leamed CIT (A) red upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Offer of initiating the assessment u/s. 147 by obtaining a mere mechanical sanction u/s. 151 from JCIT 27(2) and thus violating the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603.” 3. At the outset, we note that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal, by observing that despite providing many opportunities of being heard, assessee had remained non-compliant. Assessee did not bring any material fact on record in support of the grounds of appeal or to refute the findings of the ld. Assessing Officer. He thus, concluded that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Assessing Officer and thus confirmed the stand taken by him, dismissing the appeal. In Para- 3.1, a table is presented, listing four dates of hearing, out of which on two occasions, assessee had sought adjournments and two remained non-complied. On this, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that on the last day of hearing when adjournment was sought, it was rejected and the appeal was dismissed. 3.1. Ld. Counsel prayed for restitution of the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication, by giving an assurance that necessary compliance shall be made, once opportunity is given to the assessee. Reference was made to ground no.5 and 8 in the appeal, whereby it is contested that the impugned orders have been passed without providing opportunity of personal hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice. 3 ITA No.6306/MUM/2024 Udaylal Hiralal Jain, AY 2016-17 4. We have gone through the orders of the authorities below and noted that assessee had complied with the requirements at the assessment stage, though were not accepted by the ld. Assessing Officer. Considering the overall facts of the case and prayer/submissions made by the ld. Counsel, we find it appropriate, in the interest of justice and fair play, to remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo meritorious adjudication on the grounds raised by the assessee. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make any further submissions, if so desired. Assessee is also directed to be diligent in attending the hearing proceedings. Accordingly, grounds taken by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 04 March, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Singh Karhail) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 04 March, 2025 MP, Sr.P.S. Copy to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "