YOGESH ASHOK MUNDADE ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -11(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5085/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 January 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 5085/Mum/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Yogesh Ashok Mundade Flat No. 51, 5th Floor Navalai CHS Ltd. Charkop Market Sector-1, Plot No. 243 Kandivali (West) Mumbai - 400067 [PAN: AFVPM9718D] Vs 1. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 11(2)(1), Mumbai अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hitesh M. Shah, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Da1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the investment of Rs. 1,10,50,000 was made in FY 2013-14 and 2014-15, which were relevant for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, not AY 2016-17. The Tribunal also noted that an addition of Rs. 1.04 Crores for cash deposits with Shri Kartik Mohan Prasad had already been made by the AO for AY 2014-15.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order pertaining to AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on investments made by the assessee in schemes operated by Shri Kartik Mohan Prasad, totaling Rs. 2,14,50,000.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made for investments in AY 2016-17 were justified when the investments pertained to earlier assessment years and a similar addition had already been made for one of the earlier years.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144B,Section 149,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh M. Shah, C.A
Hearing: 02/01/2025Pronounced: 06/01/2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 10/09/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘ld. CIT(A)’], pertaining to AY 2016-17.

2.

The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in not considering and obliging to the order passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 12.03.2024 quashing and setting aside the Notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022, Order u/s. 148A(d) of the dated 23.07.2022, Show Cause Notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act dated 28.05.2022 and impugned Assessment Order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 30.05.2023 for A.Y. 2016-17. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in refusing to accept order passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Siemens Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. for A. Y. 2016-17. 3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the assessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B dated 2 30.05.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer even when it was barred by limitation as per Section 149 of the Act. 4) Without prejudice to the above grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law Ld. NFAC has erred in upholding the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 2,14,50,000/ - u/s. 69A of the Act. 5) That the impugned order being contrary to law, evidence and facts of the case may kindly be set aside, amended and modified in the light of the grounds of appeal

enumerated above and the appellant be granted such relief as is called for on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law. 6) That each of the grounds of appeal enumerated above is without prejudice to and independent of one another. 7) That the appellant craves leave to reserve to himself the right to add, to alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal before or at the end of the hearing and to produce such further evidence, documents and papers as may be necessary.”

3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing Ground Nos. 1, 2 &

3. Therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed.

4. The only ground which needs to be adjudicated is in respect of addition of Rs. 2,14,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act.

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that as per the information available with the Department, the AO came to know that the assessee has invested an amount of Rs.2,14,50,000/- in the scheme operated by Shri Kartik Mohan Prasad. The investment details made by the assessee are as under:-

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →