Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions under Section 68 for cash credits and ad-hoc additions for expenditure due to lack of documentation. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions as the appellant did not comply with notices. The appellant's CA faced health issues and could not attend proceedings before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appellant's CA faced severe health problems and could not attend the CIT(A) proceedings. Therefore, the Tribunal granted the appellant one more opportunity to present evidence and explanations before the CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the appellant deserves another opportunity to present evidence before the CIT(A) due to the CA's health issues, and if the additions made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) are sustainable.
Sections Cited
68, 143(3), 143(2), 127(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Smt. Benna Pilla (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)
1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. C.I.T. (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the impugned assessment order dated 11-12-2019 passed u/s.143(3) by ld. Assessing Officer, the ITO, Ward-16 (3) (3), Mumbai and assailed in the present appeal, since was framed without issuing any his own notice u/s.143(2) and also without a valid transfer order u/s.127(2) being passed by Designated Authority hence unlawful and without jurisdiction therefore, ought to have been quashed and set aside.
2 S. Ashwinikumar & Co. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. C.I.T. (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in dismissing the appeal ex-partee without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard and even without properly appreciating the issues involved and contested in the present appeal.
3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer U/s.68 at Rs.42,73,800/- for amount received from Arpan Leasing Company Pvt. Ltd in the above assessment year even without appreciating that the out of the above stated impugned addition, an amount to the extent of Rs.20,43,260/- was refund of old loan/advance given by the assessee appellant firm to the above named cash creditor and brought forward amount from the earlier years, hence addition made u/s.68 to the extent of Rs.20,43,260/- being patently illegal and unwarranted may be deleted.
That without prejudice to appeal ground no.3 even part addition made to the extent of Rs.22,30,640/- (42,73,800 – 20,43,260) as unexplained cash credit, which is out of realization by the abovenamed cash creditor from their disclosed old receivable/debtors before the date on which name of the said cash creditor was struck off from the register of MCA is without properly appreciating the facts that all the cash credit transactions had taken place through only normal banking channels and since was out of duly accounted for and disclosed transaction therefore, may be deleted.
That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of entire legitimate expenses incurred on client’s accounts at Rs.17,66,518- without properly appreciating 2 the facts of the case and law that the entire expenditure was incurred through only normal banking channels as per norms and rules and regulation of Bar Council of India and substantial amount to the extent of Rs.16,71,364/- out of it was paid to qualified advocates working with assessee appellant therefore, impugned disallowance being patently incorrect and legally unsustainable may kindly be deleted.
6. That the Ld. C.I.T. (appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of the entire vehicle maintenance expenses of Rs. 6,47,158/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer without properly appreciating that the entire said expenditure was made through only normal banking channels and exclusive use of concerned vehicles for the purpose of profession of the assessee appellant firm and relevant depreciation claim on such vehicles stands duly accepted and allowed without any dispute. In view of the same impugned entire disallowance being wrong on facts and bad in law may kindly be deleted.
That the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the ad hoc 25% disallowance of Rs.7,03,858/- made by ld. Assessing Officer in summary manner out of the various legitimate expenses incurred through only normal banking channels and claimed at Rs.28,15,430/-
3 S. Ashwinikumar & Co. under different heads of expenditure without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law therefore, may kindly be deleted. 8. That all the appeal grounds raised hereinabove are independent grounds and without prejudice to each other.
9. That the appellant craves the leave to amend alter substitute and or to raise new or additional grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
2. From the perusal of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that the notices issued by this first appellate authority, the appellant filed adjournment letters but there were no replies to the queries/issues raised by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of appellant and confirmed all the additions made by the Ld. AO.
During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, Ld. AR has submitted that the Chartered Accountant, who is attending the appeal, had serious health problems and underwent by-pass surgery. Hence, he could not attend the appeal proceedings before Ld. CIT(A). It was pleaded now that the appellant may be given one more opportunity to explain all the issues before Ld. CIT(A) with documentary evidences. The Ld. AR of the appellant has filed the copies of medical records of Chartered Accountant concerned in proof of the same.
4. The Ld. DR opposed the plea of the Ld. AR and relied on the orders of lower authorities.
5. Heard both sides. The bench is of the view that the appellant deserves one more chance to adduce evidence and explain its case before Ld. CIT(A) as the CA of appellant faced severe health problems. In view of the same, all the issues involved in this appeal are remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). The appellant is directed to cooperate with Ld. CIT(A) and produce necessary documentary evidence to substantiate his case. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to take into account all the necessary evidences and pass the order afresh as per law.
4 S. Ashwinikumar & Co.
The appeal of appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/09/2025.