AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM:
The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 20/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:-
“3.1The appellant had filed Return of Income u/s 139 for the relevant AY on 27/09/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 7,55,780/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 26/10/2019 with total income of Rs. 7,67,110/-. Later, in response to Notice u/s 148, ITR was filed on 16/06/2022 showing total income of Rs. 7,55,780/-. As per the specific information, during the year under consideration the appellant had got accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchase of Rs. 28,00,000/-from M/s Shree BalajiWooltex and Rs. 18,02,512/- from M/s RadhaKanheya Export. 3.2 During the assessment proceeding, it was noticed that the appellant declared purchases at Rs. 8,58,60,446/- and profit before tax at Rs. 7,11,013/- in the return of income. The appellant declared low profit before tax as compared to gross receipts. On perusal of information received on INSIGHT Portal, it had come to notice that Sh. Rajesh Mittal was controlling & managing 19 firms along with his associates and bogus bills were issued in the names of these 19 firms without delivery of goods. In his statement recorded by GST Authorities, Sh. Rajesh Mittal admitted that he has opened following firms along with some other persons to do bogus transactions. After considering the facts and circumstances, the AO disallowed the bogus purchases of Rs. 46,02,512/- and added to total income of the appellant.”
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 06/03/2023, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order impugned dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee.
The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has provided no opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and in violation of principals of natural justice, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee.
Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It can be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) , the impugned order has been passed ex-parte without hearing the Assessee. It is further observed that while deciding the Appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee on its merits. Considering the facts that the Assessee has not participated in the first Appellate proceedings, in the interest of justice, we remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the Appeal afresh on its merits in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
In the result, Appeal of the Assesseeis partly allowed for statistical purpose.