SHRI. KARAN ARUN MAHAJAN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (2)(2), MUMBAI

स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AJLPM1002C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Surinder Mehra Revenue by: Shri Mahender Ahuja सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 24/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

Shri Karan Arun Mahajan of share of profit from partnership firm under the provisions of section 10(2A) of the Act remains unjustified. In view of the foregoing findings, it is clear that the appellant is claiming exempt income u/s 10(2A) of the Act, without any substantive documentary evidences in support of share profit or by filling the details of such transaction in the “Schedule-IF” of the ITR. Hence, the denial of exemption u/s 10(2A) of the Act by the CPC, Bengaluru on a/c of receipt of share of profit from partnership firm is aptly made and the same is upheld. Thus, all the grounds of appeal

, which are interlinked to each other are hereby dismissed. 5 . In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” Countering the aforesaid observations of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld.

3. AR brought to my notice that even though the Ld. CIT(A) alleges that before him, the assessee failed to substantiate the issue (shares of profit from the Firm) by adducing relevant evidences as stated therein, the fact of the matter was that the Ld. CIT(A) did not ask for any such documents during the First Appellate Proceedings and merely dismissed the appeal, which show that assessee did not get proper opportunity to adduce the evidence/document before the Ld.CIT(A) and according to him, if the Ld.CIT(A) had asked for such documents, he could have definitely produced the same; and in order to support this contention, the assessee has filed the relevant documents before this Tribunal to substantiate about his share of profit from the Firm which according to him is Rs. 7,71,436/- which therefore was exempt u/s 10(2A) of the Act. It is noted that the assessee’s claim of Shri Karan Arun Mahajan exemption of Rs. 7,71,436/- u/s 10(2A) of the Act was disallowed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act since, there was inadvertent omission on the part of the CA who filed the return of income of the assessee. According to the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee did not file certain relevant documents to substantiate his claim that Rs. 7,71,436/- was the share of income from Partnership Firm which was already subjected to tax and therefore he dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved the assessee is before this Tribunal. Before this Tribunal, the Ld. AR has submitted the relevant 4. documents to substantiate his claim by filing additional evidences as noted supra. After hearing both the parties, I am inclined to admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee to substantiate that Rs. 7,71,436/- is share of profit of assessee from the Partnership Firm. From the facts and circumstances discussed supra, I am of the opinion that the assessee did not get proper opportunity before the First Appellate Authority to file the relevant documents to substantiate its claim. So I am inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee by considering the additional evidences which has been filed before this Tribunal [which has been admitted (supra)] and Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue in accordance to law; and assessee is given liberty to file the written submission/documents before this Tribunal as well

Shri Karan Arun Mahajan as the partnership deed or any other documents as called for by the Ld. CIT(A) in the course of the appellate proceedings.