Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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
Aggrieved by the orders of the lower authorities, the appellant filed the appeal as mentioned above.
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.
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.
The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/03/2025.