ACIT, MUMBAI vs. PRAFUL MANILAL SHAH, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI () & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL ()
Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.:
The present appeal filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 15/05/2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year
2020-21 on following grounds of appeal :
“1 Whether the Id CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of bogus liability holding that the assessee has not raised any fresh loan during the AY 2020-21 whereas the AO has not made addition u/s 68 as can be seen from the fact that penalty
2
ITA No.3572/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21
Praful Manilal Shah under section 270A for misreporting of income has been initiated and nowhere in the order the AO has mentioned the addition to be under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2 Whether the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting the addition on account of bogus loan/liability of Rs.4,64,00,000/- from M/s
Swastik Realtors by admitting additional evidence submitted by assessee under in violation of Rule 46A without remanding the matter to the AO and granting him the opportunity to cross examine the additional evidence and failed submit remand report?"
3 Whether the ld.CIT(A) has followed the principle of natural justice i.e. "Audi Alteram Partem" in allowing the additional evidence submitted by assessee in violation of Rule 46A, without giving the AO the opportunity of cross examination of the additional evidence by calling the remand report?"
4 Whether the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law by deleting the addition on account of bogus loan/liability ignoring the fact that in the Balance
Sheet of Swastik Realtors no loan/advance was found accessible."
5 Whether the Id.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts that the assessee has failed to substantiate the claim of Rs.4.64 crore as unsold stock instead of loan through evidences.”
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that assessee was not given proper opportunity of being heard and only two show cause notices were issued immediately after COVID period. It is submitted that, the assessee responded to the second notice issued on 08/09/2022 by filing submissions. He submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) did not call for any further details and disposed off the appeal by upholding the addition made by the Ld.AO.
2.1 The Ld.AR submitted that, assessee had further details to establish it is claim and that there is violation of principle of natural justice as proper opportunity of being heard was not granted to the assessee.
3
ITA No.3572/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21
Praful Manilal Shah
3 On the contrary the Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below. 3. We have perused the submissions advance by both sides. The Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the submissions filed by the assessee and statement of facts recorded in Form 35. It is noted for the decision assessee in respect of the issue is in para 5. On perusal of the same it is clear that the same is without carrying out enquiries. It is further noted that the assessee has not been granted proper opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice we remit this issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) on the direction to pass detail order on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly the grounds raised assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/03/2025 (GIRISH AGRAWAL) Judicial Member Mumbai: Dated: 28/03/2025 Poonam Mirashi, Stenographer Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.
4
ITA No.3572/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2020-21
Praful Manilal ShahBy order
(Asstt.