VINOD DHARMA MANE,OSHIWARA BUS DEPOT vs. ITO, KAUTILYA BHAWAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 301/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 March 2025AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made an addition on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contested this addition, arguing that the credit was explained. However, the judgment excerpt does not contain the Tribunal's finding on this issue, nor does it provide the reasoning or the ratio decidendi. The operative directions or relief granted are also not specified in the provided text. The Tribunal's decision on the specific question of whether the addition was justified is not recorded.

What were the facts?

The assessee is challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 34, Mumbai, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) is ITA No. 301/MUM/2025. The specific details of the assessment order or the grounds for appeal are not provided in the excerpt. The procedural history leading up to this ITAT appeal, such as the initial assessment proceedings and the appeal to the CIT(A), is not elaborated upon.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the cash credit was explained and that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition. Specific details of the assessee's arguments and any authorities or precedents relied upon are not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the cash credit remained unexplained in the hands of the assessee, justifying the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Specific details of the revenue's arguments and any authorities or precedents relied upon are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1.

1. The learned CIT(A) faceless erred in confirming additions amounting to Rs 35,00,000 under section 69 without making an effort to dispense justice. The CIT ought to have considered the amount of Income Tax paid by the assessee and income declared routinely.

2. The learned CIT(A) failed to provide reasonable opportunity of being heard, as merely repetitive notices on emails can be overlooked by the assessee or their authorized representative. Your appellant prays to restore the appeal back with the Commissioner of Income Tax appeal as the issue involved relates to verifying source of funds.

3. Your appellants pray to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing.

2. The crux of the issue is that the appellant did not submit any source of investment made in the property to the extent of Rs. 35 lakhs either before the Ld. AO or before Ld. CIT(A) and hence addition was made and confirmed respectively.

2 Vinod Dharma Mane

3.

Aggrieved by the orders of the lower authorities, the appellant filed the appeal as mentioned above.

4.

On the date of hearing, none appeared before the ITAT. The Ld. DR argued that the addition may be sustained. There is a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal and the same is condoned because the delay is minimal.

5.

After perusal of the material on record, it was decided to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). One more opportunity is given to the appellant to explain the source of investment of Rs. 35 lakhs in the property. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass the order accordingly.

6.

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/03/2025.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →