Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Mr. Mangesh Tukaram Sawant, Mumbai vs Acit - 25(2), Mumbai on 31 October, 2022
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"B" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM &
SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM
आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.302/Mum/2021
(निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)
MR. MANGESH ACIT- 25(2) MUMBAI
TUKARAM SAWANT Kautilya Bhavan,BKC,
A/004,Prathamesh Bandra(E),Mumbai
बिधम/ Maharashtra, 400051
Horizon, New MHB
Vs.
Colony, Linking Road,
Borivali(w), Mumbai
400091
स्थायीलेखासं ./ जीआइआरसं ./ PAN No. AAGPS0518M
(अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)
अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR.
सुनवाईकीतारीख/
: 18.10.2022
Date of Hearing
घोषणाकीतारीख /
: 31.10.2022
Date of Pronouncement
आदे श / O R D E R
Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:
1. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Assessee against order dated 11.03.2016, passed by the CIT (Appeals) 44 Mumbai for 2 I.T.A. No. 302/Mum/2021 Mangesh Tukaram SAwant the quantum of assessment passed u/s 144 of that for the AY 2011-2012.
2. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged, firstly, ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT (Appeals) without deciding on merits; secondly, Ld. Assessing Officer as erred in law and on facts upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in framing the Assessment Order u/s 144; thirdly, addition of Rs. 1,39,88,468/- being unsecured loans as appearing in the balance sheet; fourthly, disallowance of Rs. 46,74,112/- being financial expanses debited to the profit and loss account; and lastly, addition of Rs.11,59,91,405/- being increase in current liability as appearing in the balance sheet for the year ending 31st March 2011.
3. At the outset, the appeal of the Assessee is time barred by 1763 days. Before us, the Ld. Counsel filed the affidavit of the Assessee explaining the reasons for condo nation delay. The averment made in the affidavit reads as under:
3
I.T.A. No. 302/Mum/2021 Mangesh Tukaram SAwant I, Mangesh Tukaram Sawant aged about 58 years, residing at Sailee Villa, New MHB Colony, Near Prathamesh Tower, Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 091, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. that the income-tax matters were being looked after by my Accountant Mr. Dakshesh Goyal and all the notices, orders, papers and documents sent to me by the Income-tax Department were being received by him and the correspondences thereto were also solely being done by him.
2. that after he vacated the office on 30th November, 2020, he handed over the notices, orders, papers and documents (though incomplete) relating to my income-tax matters to me; I took the said notices, orders, papers and documents to various professionals so that they look after the on-going matters relating to income-tax and further, take appropriate necessary actions wherever required, but could not find any success and the matters only dragged on from one professional to the other.
3. that on 15th February, 2021, I sent all the relevant notices, orders, papers and documents to Mr. Hasmukh Mehta, who in- 4
I.T.A. No. 302/Mum/2021 Mangesh Tukaram SAwant turn took it to Messers R.S. Khandelwal & Associates, Chartered Accountants for further action.
4. that on 17th February, 2021, their office sent me a mail of all the income-tax matters that are there which they could collate from the various files containing notices, orders, papers and documents (though incomplete).
5. that the present appeal which ought to have been filed on or before 17 May, 2016 but due to the reasons mentioned hereinabove, could not be filed and is now being filed on 15th March, 2021, that is with a delay of 1763 days. Further, state that whatever is stated hereinabove is true to my own knowledge and belief and I believe the same to be true.
4. He further, submitted that there were no latches on part of Assessee, except that the Accountant of the assessee had misled the Assessee and he was not aware of income tax proceeding and he was completely dependent on his accountant. Thus, he submitted that in the interest of substantial justice, delay should be condoned.
5
I.T.A. No. 302/Mum/2021 Mangesh Tukaram SAwant
5. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the Assessee, neither before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT (A) had represented his case, which clearly shows the complacent attitude of the Assessee. The Assessee is trying to put the entire blame on his accountant rather than to be vigilant about the Income Tax proceedings. Thus, he submitted that delay should not be condo med.
6. After considering the facts and circumstances and the reasons given for condonation of delay, it is seen that, the accountant of the Assessee Mr. Dakshesh Goyal was looking after the matters of the Assessee who had left the job on 30th Nov, 2020 and then only all the papers and documents including notices were handed over to the Assessee and then, Assessee had made arrangement for filing of the appeal before us. Though, the Assessee has neither made compliance before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT (Appeals) nor even filed the second appeal before the Tribunal in time. However, looking to the reasons given for condonation of delay, there appears to be sufficient cause not representing the matter as he was dependent upon his accountant who had neither informed the Assessee properly and had misled him from time to time. 6
I.T.A. No. 302/Mum/2021 Mangesh Tukaram SAwant
7. The Assessee is engaged in the business of building construction who has declared income of Rs.25,645/-. As against that, the Assessing Officer has made very high pitch assessment by making addition of Rs.13.47 crores by adding the entire unsecured loans and sundry creditors and also disallowed the entire financial expenses. Even if the assessment order has been passed u/s 144 by making best judgment assessment that does not been that the Assessing Officer should make such a high pitch assessment. Thus, under these circumstances that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the Appeal in time; therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, we are condoning the delay of 1763 days.
8. On merits' we find that the Ld. CIT (A) has passed ex-parte order on the ground that Assessee has not complied with the notices. He did not decide appeal on merits.
9. Since, very high pitch assessment has been made by making addition of Rs. 13.48 Cores as against return income of Rs. 25,645/- therefore, we are of the opinion that matter should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass fresh 7 I.T.A. No. 302/Mum/2021 Mangesh Tukaram SAwant assessment order in accordance with the law after giving due and effective opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and substantiate his case.
10. Accordingly, all the issues and grounds raised before us are remitted to the file of the AO to pass fresh assessment order de novo and in accordance with the law.
11. Accordingly, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Orders pronounced in the open court on 31st Oct.,2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S Rifaur Rahman) (Amit Shukla)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
मुंबई Mumbai;ददनां क Dated : 31.10.2022
आदे शकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रे नर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant
2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent
3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned
5. दवभागीयप्रदतदनदध, आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard File 8 I.T.A. No. 302/Mum/2021 Mangesh Tukaram SAwant आदे शधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, उि/सहधयकिंजीकधर (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) .
आयकरअिीिीयअनर्करण, मुंबई/ ITAT, Mumbai