NIRAV MAFATLAL PANDYA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29 (2)(4), MUMBAI

The short issue requiring our adjudication in this appeal is correctness of the addition of Rs. 66,94,160 on account of alleged on money payment for purchase of a flat.

When this appeal was taken up for hearing, it was noticed that the learned CIT(A) has summarily dismissed the appeal reiterating the findings of the Assessing Officer, without dealing with legal arguments of the assessee and a decision on the said issue in the case of Anil Jaggi vs ACIT [(2018) 168 ITD 612 (Mum)] wherein a coordinate bench, headed by Hon’ble President, has made some observations which are said to be fully binding on the present facts as well.

Assessment Year: 2015-16 Page 2 of 2 Learned counsel for the assessee has pressed on these legal issues, while learned Departmental Representative points out that it would not be appropriate to deal with these issues particularly as none of the authorities below had an occasion to deal with the same.

We are of the considered view that, given the above position, it will indeed be appropriate to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication including on the legal arguments raised by the assessee as also on the assessee’s reliance as co-ordinate bench decision in the case of Anil Jaggi (supra). While doing so, the learned CIT(A) will given a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and decide the matter by way of a speaking order and in accordance with the law. All contentions will remain open. Accordingly, the matter is hereby restored to the file of the CIT(A).

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court today on the 04th day of January 2022.