ITO - 21 (3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SATISHKUMAR KUNDANMALJI PORWAL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3240/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO before admitting and relying on fresh evidence submitted by the assessee. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessee's case based on information about significant credit entries in the assessee's bank accounts from undisclosed sources. The assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the AO, leading to an ex-parte assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting additions based on new evidence without confronting it to the AO, and whether the AO's verification was adequate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(b),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASHTY & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 19.04.2022Pronounced: 26.05.2022

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

(Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →