M/S. CHENAJI NARSINGJI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -23(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2327/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits and violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and not discussing the remand report. The order of CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm engaged in gold bullion business filed its return. Following a survey and search, the Assessing Officer made an addition for cash deposits. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, but the assessee appealed due to alleged violations of natural justice and lack of proper opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity and failing to consider the remand report. Whether the CIT(A) decided the appeal on merits as required by law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 133A,Section 114B,Section 114C(2),Section 250(6),Section 250(4),Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(b),Section 251(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi a/w Ms. Dinkle Hariya &, Shri Prashant Ghumare, ARs
For Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (CIT-DR)
Hearing: 09.07.2025Pronounced: 12.08.2025

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →