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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6523/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 January 2022AY 2015-162 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had summarily dismissed the appeal without dealing with the legal arguments and a relevant co-ordinate bench decision. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 66,94,160 made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged on-money payment for a flat. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without addressing the assessee's legal arguments.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by failing to address the assessee's legal arguments and a binding precedent. The core issue is the addition of alleged on-money payment for a flat.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, MUMBAI

Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee-appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 29th July 2019 passed by the learned CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

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.

3.

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.

1.

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.

4.

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).

5.

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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →