RAJENDRA NIVRUTTI THITE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 458/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 June 2023AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to verify the genuineness of the dividend receipt with necessary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed an exemption of Rs. 1,95,000/- as dividend income. The Assessing Officer made an addition as no evidence was provided. The CIT(A) sustained the addition due to lack of supporting documents like Board Resolution.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of dividend income is justified without proper verification of supporting evidence, and if the matter should be remanded for further inquiry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora
For Respondent: Shri Gurmel Singh

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, VP:

1.

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 28-02-2023 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.1,95,000/- towards Dividend received from Grainotch Industries Ltd., which was claimed as exempt.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee claimed exempt income, inter alia, of Rs.1.95 lakh. In the absence of the assessee furnishing any evidence in support of the income, the Assessing Officer (AO) treated such amount as “Income from Other Sources” and made the addition. During the course of first Appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that Rs.1.95 lakh was received as dividend from Grainotch Industries Ltd. In the absence of the assessee furnishing the Board Resolution regarding declaration of dividend or any other evidence, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition.

Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. The assessee has made out a case that a sum of Rs.1.95 lakh was received as dividend from Grainotch Industries Ltd. Though the evidence in respect of receipt of dividend, such as, the Board Resolution etc., was not placed before the authorities below, the ld. AR contended that such evidence was now available and the same can be verified. Considering the facts in the entirety, I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set aside on this score and the matter is remitted to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct him to verify the genuineness of receipt of dividend of Rs.1.95 lakh as corroborated with the necessary evidence and then decide the issue as

per law. Needless to say, the assessee will be given reasonable opportunity of hearing.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 09th June, 2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →