SMT HEMLATA SUNIL PANGALE,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JALGAON, JALGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 614/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 July 2023AY 2009-105 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot go beyond the scope of remand directions and should have accepted the assessee's explanation as the withdrawals from the creditor's SB account exceeded the loan amount. The addition was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return for AY 2009-10 was assessed after the AO added Rs. 9,00,000 as unexplained cash credit. The ITAT had previously remanded the matter to the AO to verify the creditor's SB account against the loan amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer exceeded the scope of remand directions by re-examining issues already considered and not within the specific mandate of the remand order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Hearing: 21.06.2023Pronounced: 11.07.2023

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 07.02.2023 for the assessment year 2009-10.

2.

At the outset, there is a delay of 41 days in filing of the present appeal. The appellant had filed the petition for condonation of the NFAC through e-mail was not noticed by the appellant, as the appellant was not habit of checking regularly the e-mails. It is prayed that the delay be condoned in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land and Acquisition vs. M/s Mst. Katiji & Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC). On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR has no serious objection for condonation of delay. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that it is a fit case for condonation of delay of 41 days and proceeded to dispose of the case on merits. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 18.03.2010 declaring total income of Rs.4,50,638/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 26.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) after making the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- to the returned income treating the loan of Rs.9,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 12.10.2017 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT vide order dated 01.03.2019 in for A.Y. 2009-10 in assessee’s own case remanded the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the following directions :- “7. On hearing the ld. DR for the Revenue and considering the above additional evidences, I am of the opinion the SB account of Shri Viniyak Atterde, the creditor of the assessee, assumes from significant for deciding the issue meaningfully. Therefore, the said additional evidences are admitted and referred to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. The Assessing Officer shall examine the cash flow statement of loan account to the SB account of Shri Viniyak Atterde and if the amounts and debts are matching to the cash received by the assessee as loan, claim of the assessee, may be allowed after examining the documents, additional evidences and the submissions of the assessee in the remand proceedings. Accordingly, the issue is remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.”

4. Consequent to the order of remand passed by the ITAT, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 08.04.2021 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act reiterating the same addition.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →