SURINDERKUMAR BANSILAL SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1565/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 June 2025AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the learned Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the proceedings before the learned CIT(A) were not attended, which led the learned CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for want of documentary evidence. The learned Counsel for the assessee prayed for another opportunity before the learned CIT(A). The Tribunal, considering that the assessee should get one more opportunity to defend its case and present necessary documentary evidence, and in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to remit the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A). The assessee was directed to attend the appellate proceedings. The learned CIT(A) was directed to decide the issues on merits of the case and on the facts available before him. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific finding was given on the merits of the additions of jewellery and cash. The issue of the validity of the appellate order due to the assessee's illness was implicitly addressed by granting a fresh opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Surinder Bansilal Sharma, has filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 52, Mumbai, dated 16/10/2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal challenges additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's primary grievance is that the CIT(A) upheld an addition of Rs. 37,10,286/- for unexplained investment in jewellery seized during a search, and an addition of Rs. 29,00,000/- for cash seized from the assessee's premises. The assessee contends that the sources of the jewellery and cash were duly explained with evidence. A procedural issue raised is that the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A) due to illness, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for want of documentary evidence. The assessee sought another opportunity before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 37,10,286/- under Section 69A as unexplained investment in jewellery seized during a search, despite the assessee's submission that the sources of the entire jewellery were duly explained with evidence. (Question of law and fact turning on Section 69A). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,00,000/- under Section 69A in respect of cash seized, ignoring the submission and evidence that the cash was withdrawn from the assessee's partnership firm, Sabari Developers LLP, and was recorded in its audited books of account. (Question of law and fact turning on Section 69A). 3. Whether the appellate order is bad in law due to the assessee's inability to appear before the CIT(A) on the last dates due to illness. Assessee's Contentions: - The sources of the entire jewellery found at the time of search, including the seized jewellery, were duly explained with evidence during the assessment proceedings. The addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) must be deleted. - The cash of Rs. 29,00,000/- seized was withdrawn by the appellant from his partnership firm, Sabari Developers LLP, and is duly recorded in the audited books of account of the firm, submitted before the Income Tax Department. Thus, the addition should be deleted. - The appellate order is bad in law because the appellant could not appear before the CIT(A) on the last dates due to illness. - The assessee prayed for another opportunity before the CIT(A) to present its case and documentary evidence. Revenue's Contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal (virtually) & Satish Gupta (Physically)
For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) – 52, Mumbai (hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)"] dt. 16/10/2024 pertaining to AY 2018-19. 2. The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding an addition of Rs 37,10,286/- u/s 69A made by AO as unexplained investment in jewellery seized at the time of search, though the sources of the entire jewellery found at the time of search including the seized jewellery was duly explained with evidence in the assessment proceedings. The impugned addition made without considering the submission of appellant must be deleted.

2.

The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO who made an addition of Rs 29,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act in respect of cash seized at the time of search from the premises of the appellant ignoring the submission and evidence placed on record that the said cash was withdrawn by the appellant from his partnership firm (Sabari Developers LLP) and is duly recorded in the audited books of account of the firm, submitted before the Income tax Department. Thus, the addition should be deleted.

3.

The impugned appellate order is bad in law because due to illness, the appellant could not appear before CIT(A) on the last dates.

4.

The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, alter, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing."

3.

At the very outset, referring to the documentary evidence filed in the paper book, the ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) were not attended which prompted the ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for want of documentary evidence. The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for another opportunity before the ld. CIT(A).

4.

We are of the considered view that the assessee should get one more opportunity to defend its case and present/furnish all the necessary documentary evidence in support of its defense. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee directed to attend the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) may decide the issues on merits of the case and on facts available before him.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 18th June, 2025 at Mumbai. (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 18/06/2025 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 3 आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →