V V Collection vs. The ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessment in this case was completed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act wherein the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 3,07,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act which, on appeal, has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and against the said order, the assessee is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee did not receive any notice either electronically or manually. The notices were sent on the email id of the earlier Counsel who has since left the CA Firm and in view of the same, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from attending to the scheduled hearing and filing the necessary information/documentation. It was submitted that the assessee has since updated the new email id of Shri Vinay Goel, partner and Counsel on the IT portal and it was submitted that the assessee may be allowed an opportunity to represent its case before the Ld. CIT(A).…

Legal Issues

• 1. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without exercising best judgement.
• 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming the action on AO acted only on the basis of information received from DDIT(lnvestigation) and did not apply his mind while recording the reasons u/s 147 of the Act and initiation of the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act, which goes to the root of the case and dent the reopening itself.
• 3. The CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming the action of AO because Approval u/s 151(l)for re-opening the case has been given by JCIT in Mechanically manner.
• 4. The CIT(A) erred in law and facts by confirming the action of AO as Approval u/s 151(1) has been received on 08.04.2021 vide DAK R No 30. And notice u/s 148 issued on 31.03.2021 without taking necessary approval
• 5. Notice issue u/s 148 issued on basis of non existing facts.
• 6. That on the law, facts and circumstances of the case. Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 30700000/- without considering the document available with Assessing Officer.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• M/s Stupendors Traders Private Limited vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata

• ITA No.2462/Del/2025 Komal Tyagi (AY: 2017-18)

  B Bench, Delhi benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Smt. Najmunnisha Alibhai Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Ahmedabad bench

• Devendra Mohanbhai Patel Vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Shreyans Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

  Kolkata ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2011-12 & 2012-13Partly Allowed

• ITO, Ward – 13(2)(1) Vs. M/s SKA Sales Pvt Ltd