CHIDANANDA BORAH,SONITPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8/GTY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 June 2023AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not entertaining the additional evidence and not providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 17,42,500/- for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) to explain the source of these deposits, but it was not entertained.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not entertaining additional evidence and violating principles of natural justice by not providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SRI SONJOY SARMA

order

: June 16th, 2023 ORDER

Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2017-18 is directed against the I.T.A. No.: 8/GTY/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chidananda Borah. order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Guwahati [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 18.05.2020 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 25.06.2019.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “

1. That the Appeal order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in short [CIT (A)] is bad in law as well as facts. As such the same is void-ab-initio.

2. That the order of learned CIT (A) is entirely contradictory of law as well as facts of the case to the extent for confirming the estimated addition of 1742500/- assessed by A/O in various Banks on suspicion, irrational and without providing the reasonable, sufficient and actual opportunity.

3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1742500/- made by A/O in assessment order on conjecture, whimsical, fanciful and arbitrary grounds.

4. That the learned CIT (A) is wrong and unjust in confirming the addition of Rs. 1742500/- made by A/O in assessment order who did not follow the principles of natural justice as no reasonable and sufficient opportunity provided to Appellant.

5. That the learned CIT (A) also erred for not observing the work of A/O who did not follow the principles of natural justice for not providing reasonable opportunity to the Appellant as well as ignoring the facts on record/s.

6. That Appellant craves leave to amend, alter or delete any of the above ground/s of Appeal.”

3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the additional evidences were filed before ld. CIT(A) in order to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 17,42,500/- but the same was

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →