Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2258 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-10-2023
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
24-10-2023
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
14-07-2023
Judgement Text
1
ITA 2500/Mum/2023
Devang Jitendra Mashru
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”,MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER)
AND
MISS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
I.T.A. No.2500 /Mum/2023
(Assessment year : 2010-11)
Devang Jitendra Mashru
42-B, Forjet Street, Sai Kripa Bldg
1
st
Floor, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai
PAN : AACPM4148H
vs Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4)
Mumbai
Room No.222, Matru Mandir,Tardeo
Mumbai-400 007
APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
Present for the Assessee Shri Satyaprakash Singh
Present for the Department Shri Rajesh Meshram
Date of hearing 25/10/2023
Date of pronouncement 27/10/2023
O R D E R
Per Padmavathy S (AM):
This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short CIT(A)] dated 26.05.2023 for
assessment year 2010-11.
2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal-
2
ITA 2500/Mum/2023
Devang Jitendra Mashru
"i. The order dated 26.05.2023 bearing no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053207367(1)
by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi is arbitrary, against natural justice,
unlawful, against the provision of Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore liable to be quashed.
ii. In the circumstances and in law, CIT(A) has facts and of the case the Learned erred in
confirming the addition of Rs. 37,93,OOO/-confirming the addition of Rs. 37,93,000/- on
account of unexplained income on account of sale of immovable property.
iii. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred
in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,36,961/- on account of purchase of share as unexplained
investment u/s 69 of the Act."
3. The assessee is an individual. For AY 2010-11, the assessee did not file the
return of income. The assessing officer, based on information from NMS module
noticed that the assessee has sold immovable property during the year under
consideration. The assessing officer therefore reopened the assessment under
section 147 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) and accordingly issued a notice under
section 148 of the Act to the assessee. The assessee did not respond to the said
notice and the subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore
the assessing officer completed the assessment under section 144 r.w.s.147 of the
Act in which the assessing officer made an addition of Rs.37,93,000/- as
undisclosed income pertaining to sale of property and also an addition under
section 69 of the Act towards purchase and sale of shares amounting to
Rs.6,36,961.
4. Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). In the statement of
facts and grounds of appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee has stated that the
property that is sold does not belong to the assessee and that the 'net income from
the share transaction is below the taxable limit and hence no return was filed.
3
ITA 2500/Mum/2023
Devang Jitendra Mashru
The assesseedid not make any representation before the CIT(A) also and no written
submissions filed. Therefore the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte confirming
the additions made by the assessing officer.
5. The Id AR before us submitted that the assessee is not aware of the
proceedings of income tax and hence did not represent the case. The Id AR prayed
for one more chance to represent the case before the lower authorities.
6. The Id DR on the other hand argued that the assessee is a habitual defaulter in
not representing the case and that he has not appeared before the assessing officer
as well as the CIT(A).The Id DR therefore submitted that the additions made
should be confirmed.
7. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. We notice from the
records that the assessee neither appeared before the assessing officer nor before
the CIT(A). We also notice that the additions made by the assessing officer are
based on information from the ITS data and due to lack of details the assessing
officer has treated the entire income from sale of property as unexplained. The
addition towards share transaction is also made for the same reason that no
information is available with regard to the transaction and hence added as income
under section 69 of the Act. Since the assessee remained non-compliant even in the
appellate stage, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal exparte. During the course of
hearing, the Id AR prayed for one final opportunity and undertook to make a
proper representation if the case is remitted back. Considering the facts of the case
and in the interest of justice and fair play we are giving one final opportunity to the
assessee by remitting the issue back to the CIT(A) to examine the case afresh on
merits by calling for details as may be required. The assessee is directed to file
4
ITA 2500/Mum/2023
Devang Jitendra Mashru
details as may be called for and to represent the case without seeking any
adjournments. It is ordered accordingly.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27/10/2023
Sd/- sd/-
(ABT T VARKEY) PADMAVATHY S.
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai, Dt :27
th
October, 2023
Pavanan
प्रतितिति अग्रेतििCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1.
अिीिार्थी/The Appellant ,
2.
प्रतिवादी/ The Respondent.
3.
आयकर आयुक्त CIT
4.
तवभागीय प्रतितिति, आय.अिी.अति., मुबंई/DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
6.
गार्ड फाइि/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
Asstt. Registrar / Senior Private Secretary
ITAT, Mumbai
