9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ineering Ltd [ 2022 (6) TMI 903 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] Wherein 12.5% of the amount of the bogus purchases were appellant is an addition in such cases - Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 646/MUM/2022 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2022 - Shri Prashant Maharishi, AM For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri. Ujjwal Chavan SR AR ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee against Appellate order passed by The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Mumbai [ The Ld. CIT (A)] dated 5/8/2019 for assessment year 2011 12 wherein appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) read with Section 147 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [ The Act] dated 19/10/2016 passed by The Income Tax Officer, Ward 19 (1) (2), Mumbai (The AO) is dismissed. 02. Briefly stated the learned assessing officer reopened the assessment for the impugned assessment year and made an addition of ₹ 1,722,871/- being 12.5% of Rs 1, 37,82,968/ being bogus purchases from 14 different parties which is confirmed by the learned CIT A therefore assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uash the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act with direction to annulled and/or set aside the re-opening proceeding with reassessment order dated 19-10-2016 and to delete the addition made by Assessing Officer and sustained by CIT(A), Mumbai 3. Appellant has submitted letter dated 17-02-2016 in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and requested Assessing Officer to consider the original return of income submitted on 25-09-2011 may be considered in response and in compliance or police u/s. 148 and further requested Assessing Officer to furnish copy of reasons recorded for raising objections but he failed to provide the same. This conduct of Assessing Officer could render the order of reassessment invalid as reassessment compelled by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 of the Act cannot be sustained. This is well settled law as per the decisions of jurisdictional Bombay High Court I.T.A.T., Mumbai and Apex Court of India. Therefore, it is prayed that the order passed by Assessing Officer dated 19-10-2016 may be annulled and/or set side in toto with direction to delete the addition made by Assessing Officer and substantiated by CIT(A), Mumbai. It is pertinent to note that CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Appellant. Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) have not decided these issues properly and legally as they neglected to follow the decisions of the jurisdiction Bombay High Court, ITAT Mumbai and Supreme Court of India but followed the judgment of Gujarat High Court, which is against the principles of Article 141 of the Construction of India. Therefore, addition made by Assessing Officer sustained by CIT(A) may be deleted or may be reduced to token percentage in the interest of justice. 7. Interest levied u/s 234 B of the Act for short payment of advance tax and interest levied u/s. 234C for nonpayment of assessed tax may be deleted as appellant is pursuing all legal remedies and which was not finally accepted by the Appellant after fine years of completion of Financial year and the face if finality of the appeal is yet to be decided by this Honorable ITAT, Mumbai. 03. Facts shows that assessee is a firm engaged in the business of trading in ferrous and nonferrous metals. It filed its return of income on 25/9/2011 at a total income of ₹ 164,070/ . This return was not picked up for scrutiny and therefore subsequently when information was received from the sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal is delayed for the reason that appellate order is dated 6/8/2019, the assessee says that same was communicated to on 5/3/2022 and subsequently on 11/4/2022 the appeal was filed. For the condonation of delay, assessee submitted that there was change in the address of the reason that the form was having address which went into the development of the building and therefore the address of the assessee was shifted therefore the appellate order could not be served on the assessee. Subsequently when penalty order u/s 271 (1) was received assessee came to know about the impugned order as in the appellate order it was mentioned that appeal filed by the assessee before the first appellate authority was dismissed. This happened on 2/2/2022. Thereafter assessee immediately filed the appeal. In the process it caused delay in filing of this appeal. Same is also supported by affidavit of the partner of the firm. The facts also shows that the appellate order shows the address of the assessee different from form number 36 filed before us. In view of this we find that there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal and hence same is condoned. 07. Before the learned CIT A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
