MUMBAI SHELTER HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 1(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 554/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 March 2023AY 2013-20145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the appeal without considering the additional evidence and without seeking a remand report from the AO. The matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) decided the appeal without considering additional evidence filed by the assessee and without obtaining a remand report from the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can confirm additions without considering additional evidence and without obtaining a remand report from the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI BASKARAN B R, AM & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. AR
For Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. AR

O R D E R

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 17.02.2023, passed by Ld.CIT (A)-47

1.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law confirming additions when the AO had not furnished reply to the remand report sought from him. Without Prejudice to the above 2.The Learned CIT(A) erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law confirming the action of the AO making addition from loose papers found in survey. Without Prejudice to the above. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law confirming action of the AO making addition of receipts of cash based on statement recorded on oath not appreciating statement cannot be recorded in oath during survey and that such statements have no evidentiary value and that the statement was retracted. Without Prejudice to the above. 4. The Learned CIT(A) and circumstances of the case and in law confirming the action of the AO making addition of entire receipts of cash and not restricting to NP ratio as per decision of jurisdictional High Court. Without Prejudice to the above 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law confirming the action of the AO making addition of entire receipts of cash ignoring evidences furnished to AO that these are already accounted. 6. The Learned CIT(A)erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in confirming action of AO confirming additions of credit 3 MUMBAI SHELTER HOUSING DEV. P.LTD seen in balance sheet u/s 68 ignoring various documents furnished during assessment stage and those furnished during appellate proceedings with a request for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A 7. Reasons given by CIT(A) in confirming order of Assessing Officer are wrong, insufficient and contrary to facts and evidence on record and in law. Appellant craves leave to amend, alter modify or omit any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal

s as occasion may arise or demand.

2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel submitted that here in this case Assessee had file voluminous documents and submissions on which remand report was called for by the Ld. CIT(A), however, the Ld.CIT(A), in para 6 has noted that Assessing Officer has not given any reply an accordingly, he decide the appeal on the basis of the assessment order and the submissions made by the Assessee. However, no where the Ld. CIT (A) has considered those documents and has simply confirmed the assessment order. Thus, in the interest of the justice all the grounds should be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) to consider the additional evidences and decide the issue on merits and after giving opportunity to the assessee. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon order of the CIT (A) and submitted that the issue on merits.

4 MUMBAI SHELTER HOUSING DEV. P.LTD 3. After considering the impugned order and the material placed on record, we find that, the addition has been made on account of on-money of Rs. 2,02,71,400/-; and disallowance on account unsecured loans of Rs. 2,60,00000/-. Before the CIT(A) Assessee has filed the documents which were placed before the Assessing Officer, but had also filed petition for additional evidence under rule 46A giving various confirmation from the parties and documents relating to various creditors. However, the CIT(A) without getting the remand report from the Assessing Officer, has decided the issue sans these evidences. Apart from that, the submissions which are made on the issue on-money have also not been properly considered.

4.

Therefore, in the interest of justice, we feel that matter should be restored back to the file Ld. CIT(A) to considered both the additions afresh taking to consideration the additional evidences and seek remand report from the Assessing Officer on these documents and decide afresh in accordance with the law after giving due opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →