BHASAKARRAI KANYALAL BHATT,SECUNDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 127/HYD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 November 2021AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to submit additional evidence and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct the verification within three effective opportunities of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition made by the lower authorities as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The assessee sought to submit additional evidence, including confirmations and returns, to support the loan transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additional evidence submitted by the assessee is relevant and requires fresh verification by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD.

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram for K.A. Sai Prasad

O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for Asst. Year 2016-17 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad’s order dt.13.12.2019 passed in case No.10634/2018-19/C/CIT(A)-6 in proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee's twin substantive grounds inter alia seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action adding a loan of Rs.25,54,786 in case of Smt. Ritu Rohan Bhatt and Rs.5 lakhs out of Rs.9 lakhs involving Shri Kanhyalal R Bhatt / Rohan Bhatt; respectively, as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act; we note that he has filed a petition dt.14.10.2021 seeking to place on record documents in the nature of additional evidence; running into 17 pages, including confirmations and returns; as the case may be, qua the same.

3.

Faced with this situation, learned department representative fails to dispute the clinching fact that the same are indeed relevant documents going to root of the matter. We therefore restore the assessee's instant additional evidences back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing at this taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th Nov., 2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →