AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:
These three appeals of the assessee are directed against the order of dated 27.01.2026 of ld . CIT( A)-29, New Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 196 1 (hereinafter r eferred to as ‘the Act’) where in addition made by the assessme nt order dated 31.03.2024 on acco unt of alleged bogus purchases were confirmed and appeal w as dismissed.
By this commo n order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 2524, 2525 & 2526/Del/2026 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid the multiplicity of decisio n, the same are being disposed o ff according ly. ITA No. 2524/Del/2026 is taken as “lead” case for the purpose of factual matrix.
Facts in brief are that the assessee filed retur n of income on 19.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.54,700/- for A.Y. 2019-20. A search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the group of Sh. Rupesh Kumar Batra, Aditya Kumar Jha & O thers on 10.10.2021. The case was centralized u/s 127 of the Act by PCIT-10, New Delhi vide order dated 11.02.2022. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act with the approval of Pr. CIT(Central)-03, Delhi by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 31.08.2022. Subsequently, no tice u/s 132 of the Act was issued alongwith questionnaire. During the course o f search proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has claimed purchases from M/s SS Impex, M/s SRD Impex, M/s RD Impex, M/s Durga Traders, M/ s Hariom Traders and others mentioned in para 11 .1 of the order and the said entities were allegedly indulged in issuing bogus bills. Accordingly, to verify the purchases of the assessee in respect of these parties, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the se par ties on 17.03.2024. In response to the said notice, M/s Hariom T raders filed the confirmatio n alongwith docume nts. It was also observed from the statement of Mr. Manoj Mangla that no physical movement and de livery of goods happened in the course of transactions undertaken by him and his business concern. Hence, the purchases made from M/s SR Traders were held to be bogus. Accordingly, the purchases claimed to the tune o f Rs. 7,75,19,825/- from M/s SR Traders were disallowed u/s 37(1) of the Act on account of being bogus purchases and addition o f the said amo unt was made according ly. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A o f the Act were also initiated separately.
Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the assessee filed appeal befo re the ld . CIT(A) who has dismissed the same ex-parte by passing the impugned order.
We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impug ned order has been passed without giving effective opportunity of hearing which has resulted into miscarr iage of justice and prayed for remitting the file to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after giving effective opportunity of hearing. T he ld. DR on the other hand opposed the arguments stating that vario us notices were issued by the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee has failed to made any submissions and deliberately suffered the impugned ex-parte order and as such prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
We have considered the rival submissions and e xamined the record. In order to appreciate the arguments of the ld. AR for the appellant, we deem it expedient to extr act para 4 of the impugned order as under:
“4 . During the cour se of appellat e proceedings, the appellant was issued followi ng notic es, as unde r-
S . No . D a t e o f is s u e o f n o t i ce D a t e o f c o m p l ia n c e R e m a rk s 0 1 0 4 . 0 4 .2 0 2 5 15 . 0 4 . 2 0 2 5 N o su b m iss io n f i l ed 0 2 2 0 . 0 5 .2 0 2 5 23 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 5 R e q u e st f o r a d j o u r n m en t 0 3 0 5 . 0 1 .2 0 2 6 08 . 0 1 . 2 0 2 6 R e q u e st f o r a d j o u r n m en t Dur ing t he appellate pr oce edi ngs , the appellant was provided numer ous oppor tuniti es as tabul at ed abov e, by this office. B ut the appellant did not comply wit h the notices iss ued by this office. The Ho n’bl e Supr eme Court in the case of Shri B . N. B hat tacharj ee and anot her (118 ITR 461) has hel d that t he appeal does not mean onl y fi ling of mem o of appeal but als o pur sui ng it e ffectively. In view of persistent non-compli ance to the notices issued by the appellant I a m left with no alter na tive but to proceed to adj udicate the appeal on the basis of material avai lable, in a judicious manner. ”
From the above extract of the impugned order, it is evident that there is no material/evidence to show that the notices allegedly issued has been either received for served upon the assessee. In the absence of any material/evidence regarding services of notice or receiving of notice, it canno t be said that opportunities of hearing given to the assessee in this case.
Section 250(2)(a) lays down as under:
“250(2 ) The fol lo wing shall have the right to be heard at the heari ng o f the appeal-
(a)the appellant, either i n person or by an authori zed repres entative;”
Thus, the hear ing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is no t a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natur al justice by the quasi-judicial authority.
In view of the ab ove facts and circumstances, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed w ithout effective hearing and principle of natural justice has no t b een followed For these reaso ns, the impug ned order is not maintainable and according ly set aside. T he end of justice shall be met in case the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh by affording an effective o pportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the Ld. CIT(A) w ithin the period of 60 days of this order.
Since, the factual matrix and the decision of the ld. C IT( A) is identical and similar in this appeal vis-à-vis ITA No. 2524/Del/2026, hence, the findings of the Tribunal in ITA No. 2524/Del/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis in ITA Nos.2524, 2525 & 2526/Del/2026 for A.Y s. 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2022-23 also.
In the result, these three appeals ITA No. 2524, 2525 &2526/Del/2026 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.