NAYANKUMAR S SONAWANE,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)- 48, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4877/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 March 2022AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s rejection of additional evidence was uncalled for, especially as the Assessing Officer's assessment was based on non-response without clear details on opportunities given. The matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained cash credits and expenditure due to non-response from the assessee. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's application for additional evidence and upheld the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence and upholding additions without ensuring the assessee was given adequate opportunity to explain.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

For Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Hearing: 11.01.2022Pronounced: 16.03.2022

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) 30.4.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14.

2.

The grounds of appeal

read as under :

1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in not giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard before passing the order.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in rejecting the application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming addition of Rs.1,61,887/- as Unexplained Cash Credits u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act to the returned income. The said amount represents the additions on account of cash deposits with the B ha rat Co-op. Bank Ltd. The appellant humbly prays that the said addition be deleted.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts, in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming addition of Rs.10,91,600/- as Unexplained Cash Credits u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act to the returned income. The said amount represents the additions on account of cash deposits of Rs.6,71,600/- and Rs.4,20,000/- credited to the account held with Hindustan Co-op. Bank Ltd. The appellant humbly prays that the said addition be deleted.

2 Nayankumar S. Sonawane

3.

Brief facts are as under :

The assessee had filed return declaring total income of Rs. 4,51,0207- on 21.06.2013 which was processed u/s. 143(1). The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) dated 30.09.2014 and u/s. 142(1) dated 07.09.2015 were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition as following:

Rs. 1,61,887/- i. on account of unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 ii. on account of unexplained expenditure/s. 69C Rs 2,43,780/- iii. Unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 Rs. 10,91,600/- was made, in the assessment order, by A.O.

The entire addition was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee has not responded to the explanation sought on the impugned issues.

4.

Before learned CIT(A) the assessee filed additional evidence. There is no whisper on record as to when the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee and what was the time elapsed between non-compliance and whether any further opportunity was given or not. Learned CIT(A) expounded upon the language and expression used in Rule 46A and proceeded to reject the assessee’s request of filing additional evidence and upheld the Assessing Officer’s order.

5.

Against this the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

6.

I have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the records. I note that when interest of substantial justice is pitted against the technicalities Higher courts have always held that it is the interest of substantial justice that should prevail. In the facts and circumstances, it is clear that addition has been made by the Assessing Officer only on the ground that the assessee has not responded to the explanation sought. No detail whatsoever has been given as to when the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to give explanation and what time elapsed when there was no compliance.

3 Nayankumar S. Sonawane Whether the Assessing Officer issued any further notice or not. In these circumstances learned CIT(A)’s order of exposition on Rule 46A is totally uncalled for. In the interest of justice, I remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the issue afresh in the light of the submissions now being made by the assessee. Needless to mention that the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

7.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.3.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →