ALPANA JAIN,BHAYENDER vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4982/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 July 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, finding sufficient cause for its non-furnishing before the AO. The issues were restored to the AO for a fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a housewife, is contesting additions made to her income under Section 68 for two assessment years. These additions stemmed from a search and seizure operation conducted on her brother-in-law.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence should be admitted, and if so, whether the additions made under Section 68 require fresh examination by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya
For Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Hearing: 14.07.2022Pronounced: 21.07.2022

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 4982/Mum/2019
I.T.A. No. 4983/Mum/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

1.

Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Learned CIT(A) – 47, Mumbai and they relate to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

2.

In assessment year 2013-14, the assessee is contesting the addition of Rs.4,90,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act. In AY 2014-15, the assessee is contesting the addition of Rs.17,14,000/- made u/s 68 and the addition of Rs.61,640/- relating to silver utensils/articles/coins.

3.

At the outset, the Ld A.R submitted that the cases of the assessee were earlier handled by another chartered accountant. He submitted that the assessee is a house wife. She is sister in law of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, who was subjected to search and seizure operations u/s 132 of the Act. Consequent thereto, the assessments have been framed in the hands of the assessee herein and the additions mentioned above have been sustained in her

2 Alpana Jain hands in the years under consideration. The Ld A.R submitted that the earlier counsel, who represented the case, has furnished only confirmation letters in support of the loans taken by the assessee. However, the assessee is having other documents to prove the cash credits. Those documents have now been furnished by way of additional evidences. These papers were not furnished before the AO, since the earlier counsel did not ask for them from the assessee. He submitted that the assessee is a house wife and does not know the intricacies of the income tax provisions. As such, she was only following advises given by her counsel. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has now approached him and upon making enquiries, he has found that the assessee is having sufficient documents to prove the cash credits. Accordingly, the additional evidences have been filed before the Tribunal. The Ld A.R, accordingly, submitted that there was sufficient cause for the assessee in not furnishing these documents before the AO. Accordingly, he prayed that, in the interest of natural justice, these additional evidences may kindly be admitted by the Tribunal and all the issues may be restored to the file of the AO for examining them afresh.

4.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. From the submissions made by the assessee in the petition filed for admission of additional evidences, we are of the view that the assessee was dependent upon the earlier counsel in the income tax matters. According to the assessee, she was not asked to give the documents, now being furnished before the Tribunal in the form of additional evidences. Considering the submissions made in the petition, which has been narrated by Ld A.R, we are of the view that there was sufficient cause for the assessee in not furnishing those documents before the AO. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidences now furnished by the assessee.

5.

The Ld D.R had submitted that the additional evidences, if admitted by the Tribunal, should be sent to the AO for his comments. Since the additional evidences go to the root of the matter, we are of the view that the issues relating to addition made u/s 68 of the Act in both the years require fresh

3 Alpana Jain examination at the end of the AO. Since main issue is being sent to AO, we are of the view that the remaining issue relating to addition of value of silver utensils etc., may also be restored to the file of AO. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in respect of the issues contested before us in these two years and restore them to the file of the AO for examining them afresh by duly considering the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and also any other information and explanations that may be furnished by the assessee. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

6.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.07.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →