MOHAMMAD ZUBER IBRHIM PATEL,TALOJA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PUNE

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

The captioned appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – Pune [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] in relation to assessment years 2015-16 and 2017-18 respectively.
2. Both the appeals being connected with the same assessee, therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order fo by the assessee in I
2015-16 are reprodu
1. During th
2000000/- in bank of India is mentioned
Rs 1700000/
300000/-.
2 During the More and the had been pa ledger of Plot for your refere
3. Briefly stated, engaged in the bus income was filed by reopened by way of n short ‘the Act’) pursu the Act was issued a assessment was reo cash deposit in the immovable property income on 30.09.202
During the course explanation and docu and additions were m
Mohamm
ITA Nos.

or the sake of convenience. The ITA No. 468/Mum/2024 for a ced as under:
he f y 2014-2015 I have deposited a n cash in my saving bank account in a .The break up of this source of cash dep below:- ? Advances from various custom
/- Out of the cash withdrawals from bank year I had purchased a land from Mr S e payment is done through bank and no id in cash. Copy of purchase agreemen payment done to Mr Sanjay More is att ence.
facts of the case are that the siness of construction. No reg y the assessee. The case of th notice u/s 147 of the Income-ta uant to a survey action and no sking the assessee to file return pened on the basis of informa bank account and source of . In response, the assessee
20 declaring total income at R of assessment, the assesse umentary evidence, however sam made. On further appeal also the mad Suber Ibrahim Patel
2
468 & 469/MUM/2024
grounds raised assessment year around union posited mers - k – Rs
Sanjay othing nt and tached e assessee was gular return of he assessee was ax Act, 1961 (in otice u/s 148 of n of income. The ation related to f investment in filed return of Rs.11,22,290/-..
ee filed certain me were rejected e assessee made part compliance an dismissed.
4. Before us, the L containing pages 1
additional evidences
Tribunal Rules, 1963
that the earlier Cha certain dispute and remained in his pers time of appellate p assessee has obtaine wishes to admit the s relevant additional ev
5. We have heard admissibility of the referred by the asses deposits and investm root of the issue in d the Tribunal in the c
Tax, International reported in 108 IT additional evidence if not producing before
Tribunal is reproduce
Mohamm
ITA Nos.

nd therefore, appeal of the Ld. counsel for the assessee file to 113 along with an applic under Rule 29 of the Incom
3. The Ld. counsel for the asse artered Accountant had left th d therefore, the records main sonal laptop and could not be s proceedings before the Ld. CI ed all those relevant documents same as additional evidence. He vidence filed in Paper Book.
rival submissions of the parties additional evidence. The addi ssee relate to the issue in disp ment in the immovable property, dispute. We find that the Co-or case of UOP LIC v. Addl. Direc
Taxation, Circle 2(2), New
TD 186 held that the Tribuna f assessee satisfies for any subs e lower authorities. The relevan ed as under:
mad Suber Ibrahim Patel
3
468 & 469/MUM/2024
assessee was ed a Paper Book cation for filing me-tax Appellate essee submitted he office due to ntained by him submitted at the IT(A). Now, the and details and e referred to the s on the issue of itional evidence pute of the cash which go to the dinate Bench of ctor of Income w Delhi (2007) l can allow the stantial cause in nt finding of the “30. It is a s evidence at t litigating pub evidence is discretion ho arbitarily. As CIT v. Kum. S the discretion of additional document to substantial c body under t therefore, hav the questions
Tribunal is material in th issue, its disc been exercise case of Maha for the asses enables an ap require such conditions an of Rule 27 of entitled, as of the matter is of course to observed that circumstances and one of su requires any examined to other substa expression contemplates itself unable defect in the further clarifie to be unders satisfactory t was reiterate case of Syed
553 cited by case of Muni
Panchan AIR the assessee
Court that the Mohamm
ITA Nos.

settled position that production of add the appellate stage is not a matter of ri blic and allowing of production of add in the discretion of the Tribunal. The wever, is to be exercised judicially an held by Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the c
Satya Setia [1983] 143 ITR 486 1, it is w n of the appellate authority to allow prod evidence if the said authority requires enable it to pass orders or for any cause. The Tribunal is the final fact-fi the scheme of the Income-tax Act and po ve necessarily to be exercised by it for de s of fact. While exercising its powers, of the opinion that additional eviden he interest of justice for deciding a part cretion cannot be interfered with unless ed on non-existing or imaginary grounds.
avir Singh (supra ) cited by the learned co ssee, it was held that section 107 of ppellate court to take additional evidence other evidence to be taken subject to nd limitations as are prescribed under Ord
CPC. It was also held that the parties a f right, to the admission of such evidenc entirely in the discretion of the court wh be exercised judicially and sparingly. I t Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC envisages c s when additional evidence can be ad uch circumstances is where the appellate document to be produced or any witness enable it to pronounce judgment or fo antial cause. It was also clarified tha
"to enable it to pronounce judg a situation when the appellate court to pronounce judgment owing to a lacu evidence as it stands. In this context, i ed that the ability to pronounce a judgm stood as the ability to pronounce a judg to the mind of court delivering it. This po ed again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court d Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy AIR 197
the learned counsel for the assessee. I icipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v
1965 SC 1008 cited by the learned couns e, it was observed by the Hon’ble Sup e power to admit additional evidence doe mad Suber Ibrahim Patel
4
468 & 469/MUM/2024
itional ight to itional e said nd not case of within duction s any other finding owers, eciding if the nce is ticular it has In the ounsel f CPC e or to o such der 41
are not ce and hich is It was certain duced e court s to be or any at the gment"
finds una or it was ment is gment osition in the 79 SC
In the . Lala sel for preme es not entitle the ap the purpose o and it is only appellate cou
In the case of it was held th by Order 41, R evidence is circumscribed was also h application of evidence as becomes appa of Hon’ble Su
Financial Com
5.1 In view of the assessee are accepte the file of the Assess the additional eviden
6. The grounds of for statistical purpose
7. The grounds rai as under:
1. As I have bank account is mentioned
Rs 2235000/
cash withdra deposited RS
.The break up below:- ? adv
(copy of wh withdrawals f
2. FURTHER
ORDER [T I
Mohamm
ITA Nos.

ppellate court to let in fresh evidence on of pronouncing judgment in a particular for removing a lacuna in the evidence th urt is empowered to admit additional evid f Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh AIR 1951 SC hat the discretion given to the appellate
Rule 27 of CPC to receive and admit add not an arbitrary one but is a judicia d by the limitations specified in that R held that the legitimate occasion fo of the said Rule is when on examinin it stands some inherent lacuna or arent. To the similar effect is another de upreme Court in the case of Natha Sin mmissioner, Taxation AIR 1976 SC 1053.”
above, the additional evidenc ed and accordingly matter is r sing Officer for adjudication afte nce in accordance with law.
appeal of the assessee are acco es.
ised in ITA No. 469/Mum/2024
deposited Rs. 2544000/- in cash in m t .The break up of this source of cash dep below:- ? advances from various custom
/- (copy of which is attached here) ? out awals from bank - Rs 309000/-.As I
244500W- in cash in my Union bank ac p of this source of cash deposited is men vances from various customers - Rs 2039
hich is attached here) ? out of the from bank-Rs405500A
I HERE BY INFORM YOU THAT IN AP
IS STATE THAT 1 HAD NOT PAID mad Suber Ibrahim Patel
5
468 & 469/MUM/2024
nly for r way hat the dence.
C 193, e court itional al one ule. It or the ng the defect ecision ngh v.
”
ces filed by the estored back to er verification of ordingly allowed
4 are reproduced my Idbi posited mers - of the have ccount tioned
9500'- cash
PPEAL
SELF

ASSESSMENT
YEAR BUT I
TAX
WRONG
INSTAED OF HAD SUBMIT
CHALLAN FR
ASSESSMENT
8. The Ld. CIT(A) h of the assessee in de part of the finding of “34. The however, the notice of th regarding non matching the and details of accounting sy
Act was issu the requireme on the income not complied the appellant
Act. According in-iimine.”
8. Before us, the L assessee has already wrong assessment ye for which the asse rectification before
Therefore, he request of the Ld. CIT(A) for d
8.1 We have heard perused the relevant
Mohamm
ITA Nos.

T TAX AMOUNTING TO RS 500000/- IN HERE INFORM YOU THAT 1 HAD PAID
GLY
IN ASSESSMENT
YEAR
2019
ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018 AND A TTED A REQUEST TO AO FOR SHIFTING
FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-202
T YEAR 2017-2018
has dismissed the appeal for fai epositing the self-assessment ta the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as appeal has been fixed on severalocca appellant did not bring the correct facts he undersigned, However, when the n-payment of due taxes was discovered appellant's Form 35 with the income iax f tax payments available in OLTAS (On-lin ystem) and show cause notice u/s 249(4) ued, the appellant has not responded.
ent of section 249(4} (a) of paying the ta e returned at the time of filing of the app with by the appellant, the appeal present is not admitted as per section 249(4) of gly, the appeal for AY 2017-18 is DISMI
Ld. counsel for the assessee has y paid self-assessment tax but ear was mentioned in the chall essee has already filed an the AO, which is pending ted that matter may be restored deciding afresh on merit.
rival submission on the issue material on record. In view of mad Suber Ibrahim Patel
6
468 & 469/MUM/2024
N THIS D THIS 9-2020
ALSO I
G THIS 0 TO ilure on the part ax. The relevant under:
asions; to the e (act d after return ne tax of the Since, ax due peal is ted by the U.
ISSED s submitted that inadvertently a lan number and application for g for disposal.
d back to the file in dispute and self-assessment tax already paid by assessment year, wh
We feel it appropriate
CIT(A) for verification the assessee and ther with law. The groun allowed for statistical
9. In the result, bo statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 26/03/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Mohamm
ITA Nos.

y the assessee subject to rect ich is pending before the Incom e to restore the matter back to th n of the payment of the self-ass reafter, decide the issue on mer nds of appeal by the assessee l purposes.
oth the appeals of the assessee ced in the open Court on 26/0
-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu mad Suber Ibrahim Patel
7
468 & 469/MUM/2024
tification of the me-tax Authority.
he file of the Ld.
sessment tax by rit in accordance are accordingly e are allowed for 03/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai