C.R.RAJESH NAIR,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERSTWHILE WARD 8(3), NOW DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5016/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 December 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal granted the assessee one last opportunity to furnish documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the provided evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a director in two companies, declared remuneration and various losses/income. The Assessing Officer made significant additions, which were upheld by the CIT(A) for lack of evidence regarding identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee discharged the burden of proving the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of transactions when additions were made under Section 68. Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to produce evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C ” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Mathuria, Ms. Samruddhi Hande
Hearing: 09.12.2022Pronounced: 23.12.2022

The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) – 18, Mumbai passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12 & 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has challenged the ground of addition u/s. 68 of the Act on unexplained cash deposit, along with the various other grounds of appeal.

3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a director in M/s. Sigrun Realties Ltd. and Gee Kay Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (now known as Sigrun Holdigns Ltd.) and has property of Rs.1,50,000/-, loss from business/profession of Rs.27,06,717/-, loss from long term capital gain of RS.13,92,912/- and income of Rs.1,26,477/- under the head ‘income from other sources’. The assessee has filed his return of income dated 31.03.2012, declaring total income of Rs.55,01,960.- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 28.03.2014 was passed u/s. 143(3), determining the total income at Rs.10,61,82,862/- by making the various addition/disallowances. The assessee had challenged the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A).

4.

The ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the additions made by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish the details as to the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned transaction and has failed to discharge the burden casted upon the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order of the A.O. on the other grounds as well for the reason that the assessee has failed to produce any proof to substantiate his claim.

5. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A).

6.

The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee’s transactions were genuine and that the assessee proposes to file the additional evidence before the A.O. to substantiate his claim. The ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to present the assessee’s case before the A.O. the same.

8.

Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

We deem it fit and proper to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to furnish the documentary evidence in support of his claim before the A.O. as in accordance with the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the proceedings before the A.O. by furnishing all the relevant documentary evidence without causing delay. The A.O. is directed to peruse the same and to decide the case on merits. We hereby remand both these appeals to the file of the A.O. for de novo adjudication.

5.

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →