Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant's grievance is that the Ld. JCIT (Appeals) confirmed an addition of Rs. 28,44,200/- made by the AO, despite passing the order before the appellant's reply date. The appellant was denied an opportunity to file relevant documents/submissions.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appellant should be given an opportunity to file relevant documents and accordingly remitted the issue back to the Ld. JCIT (Appeals) for a decision on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the assessee was denied a fair opportunity to present their case and submissions before the appellate authority.
Sections Cited
68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “F” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
The appellant’s main grievance in this case is that the Ld. JCIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. AO by passing an order on 20.11.2018, whereas the time given for reply to the appellant is 27.11.2018. As far as the merits are concerned, an addition of Rs. 28,44,200/- made by the Ld. AO towards unproved credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, was confirmed by the first appellate authority.
During the proceedings before the ITAT, Ld. AR has produced relevant screenshots of Revenue’s website to demonstrate that the appellant was given time till 27.11.2018. But, the Ld. JCIT (Appeals) passed the appeal order on 20.11.2018 and denied the assessee the opportunity to file the relevant documents/written submission before this appellate authority.
Heard both sides. Perused the documents filed by the Ld. AR of the appellant during the appeal proceedings and the Bench is satisfied that appellant should be given opportunity to file relevant documents and 2 Vibha Sailesh Devani accordingly the issue is remitted back to the file of Ld. JCIT (Appeals). The appeal order should be passed on merits.
The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/09/2025.