JYOTI SANTOSH PARAKH,SANGAMNER vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2450/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for adjudication. Considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee and in the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity to the assessee and obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 18,70,000 in her bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer, after issuing notices and not receiving a satisfactory explanation, made an addition of Rs. 20,70,000. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without a speaking order.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be admitted despite the delay and whether the CIT(A)'s order of dismissal without a speaking order is sustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Bafna (through virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to:

1. 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →