JAYSHREE JITENDRA JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2657/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 December 2022AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for one more opportunity to present documentary evidence and the respondent's no objection, decided to grant this opportunity. The appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a property broker, failed to disclose the purchase of an immovable property worth Rs. 1,20,00,000/- in her income tax return. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made additions under sections 68 and 69, which were confirmed by the CIT(A) due to lack of documentary evidence from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) should grant the assessee another opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to substantiate the purchase of an undisclosed property, and whether the additions made under sections 68 and 69 were justified without such evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
For Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni
Hearing: 15.12.2022

This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has challenged the addition made u/s. 68 and section 69 of the Act along with the other grounds of appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a property broker and real estate broker and has filed her return of income dated 12.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs.3,56,020/- during the impugned year. The Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) observed that the assessee had purchased immovable property, amounting to Rs.1,20,00,000/- in (A.Y.2011-12) Jayshree Jitendra Joshi vs. ITO Jodhpur during the Financial Year 2010-11 and the same was not disclosed in her return of income. The A.O. reopened the assessment u/s. 147 after recording reasons and had passed the assessment order dated 25.12.2018 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee inspite of several opportunities has failed to furnish the documentary evidence to substantiate her stand.

4. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A), confirming the addition made by the A.O.

5.

The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee was unable to furnish the documentary evidence to rebut the addition made by the A.O. u/s. 68 and 69 of the I. T. Act before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR further stated that the assessee was only a co-owner of the property and was entitled to 33.33% of the shares, whereas the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition u/s. 69 of the Act for the purchase of the entire property. The ld. AR further prayed for one more opportunity to present the assessee’s case by furnishing the documentary evidence before the ld. CIT(A).

6.

The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, did not objected to the same.

7.

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

We are of the considered opinion that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present her case before the ld. CIT(A) by producing the relevant documentary evidence

(A.Y.2011-12) Jayshree Jitendra Joshi vs. ITO proposed to be filed by the ld. AR as adhering to the principles of natural justice. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the proceeding before the ld. CIT(A) without causing delay and the ld. CIT(A) is directed to hear the appeal afresh and decide the same on merits of the case. Hence, the appeal is remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

8.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 23.12.2022 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 →