MANORANJAN MOHAPATRA,ADASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 230/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack22 July 2024AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee and had erroneously stated that no corroborative evidence was filed. Therefore, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2017-2018. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated assessment proceedings to verify substantial cash deposits, but the assessee claims the AO went beyond this scope. The assessee also argues that the CIT(A) failed to consider crucial evidence submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly considered the evidence submitted by the assessee and whether the assessment was limited in scope.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 22/07/2024Pronounced: 22/07/2024

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 20.03.2024 in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062988162(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018.

2.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the AO had initiated the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for the limited purpose of verifying the issue that there was substantial cash deposit in the bank account during the year. It was the submission that the AO went beyond the issue and all the details were submitted before the AO. It was the submission that in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee had filed various evidences which had not been considered by the ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in para 5.3 of his order was erroneous insofar as substantial proof in the form of audited profit and loss account, balance sheet, written submissions and orders of the appellate authorities, which were filed in the course of hearing, were not considered by the ld. CIT(A).

3.

In reply, ld.Sr.DR submitted that the documents produced by the ld. AR was only that some evidences had been filed before the ld. CIT(A). What is the nature of those documents have not been shown. It was the submissions that the ld. CIT(A) has considered all the issues and the assessee has not been able to substantiate the written submission filed before the ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the ld. CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that no corroborative evidence have been filed by the assessee to substantiate its claim. In fact, though the ld. CIT(A) mentions that submissions have been made by the appellant, there is no mention that what are the submissions made by the appellant. Ld. CIT(A) has only extracted the statement of facts, grounds of appeal

1.

filed by the assessee and the assessment order and nothing else. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are required for readjudication at the end of the ld. CIT(A).

5. Coming to the submission of the ld. AR that the assessment was under limited scrutiny. I am not in agreement with the same, insofar as there is no mention in the assessment order that the assessment was under limited scrutiny. The assessment order mentions that the case was taken for scrutiny because there was substantial cash deposit in bank

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →