GIRIRAJ KISHAN SHARMA , MUMBAI v. ITO 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6481/MUM/2019 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 648119914 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAJPS5648H
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6481/MUM/2019
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant GIRIRAJ KISHAN SHARMA , MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-11-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 10-10-2019
Judgment Text
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 6481/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Giriraj Kishan Sharma 730 Ashtavinayak Housing Society Plot No. 137 Upper Govind Nagar Malad East Mumbai - 400 097 PAN : AAJPS5648H Vs. ITO-12(1)(1) Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Smita Verma Date of Hearing 12.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 09.11.2021 O R D E R The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)]27.6.2019 pertains to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under :- Grounds of appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A)- 20 Mumbai dated 27.06.2019 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961. Following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer as bad in law as the conditions laid down under the Act for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 of the Act were not fulfilled. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Jaw the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer was without considering the setoff of loss under the head 'Income from House property' of Rs. 1 33 024/-from the head 'Profit and Gains from Business or Profession'. Giriraj Kishan Sharma 2 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C1T(A) has erred in not considering the feet that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer was without considering the Deductions under Chapter VI-A of Rs. 1.00 000/- u/s 80C and 15 000/- u/s 80D of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned A O erred in making the addition of Rs. 1 13 827/- being 100% of the purchases made from M/s Pragati Enterprises by treating genuine purchases as non genuine purchases/unexplained expenditure.” 3. In this case the Assessing Officer made 100% addition for bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 1 13 827/-. The assessee has provided all the documentary evidences but drawing adverse inference for non-production of supplier 100% addition was done by the Assessing Officer. No doubt about the sales was expressed. 4. Before learned CIT(A) assessee raised following grounds :- 1) Assessee has been denied the opportunity to rectify the genuine errors in the original Return of income filed u/s. 139(1). 2) Assessment Order has been passes by A.O. Ignoring the facts submitted at the time of hearing. 3) Assessee may be provided the opportunity to file Revision return u/s. 139(5). 5. Learned CIT(A) also noted the following : “Letters seeking adjournment of hearings fixed on 13.05.2016 and 20.06 2019 were filed by Shri A.S. Masurkar CA. Shri A.S Masurkar CA also filed a letter dated 12.06.2017 wherein he made a request for allowing appellant's claim of deduction under section 80C SOD and also set off of loss of income from house property. However Shri A.S. Masurkar CA did not file Letter of authority in his favour Therefore the aforementioned letters are not taken cognizance of.” The learned CIT(A) rejected all the grounds and confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action. He put great emphasis of non-appearance of the assessee. 6. Against this order the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. I have learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. I note that the assessee in this case is a trader. No doubt has been expressed by Giriraj Kishan Sharma 3 the Assessing Officer about the sales. In such circumstances the decision of Hon'ble Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 619) is applicable. Authorities below have erred in not considering the same. 8. As regards additional ground raised by the assessee I note that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 has held that their order in that case would not impinge upon the powers of the ITAT to admit claim otherwise than by revised return. Accordingly in the interest of justice I remit all the issues raised to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall consider them afresh keeping in mind the observation hereinabove. Needless to add assessee should be grant proper opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 9.11.2021. Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 09/11/2021 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ITAT Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) PS ITAT Mumbai