Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) upholding the assessment order. The assessee failed to furnish substantial evidence and documents to substantiate its claims before the appellate authorities.
Held
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to re-examine the details and explanations. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding additions made under Section 69A and denying deduction under Section 54F, and whether the case should be remanded for de-novo assessment due to failure to furnish evidence.
Sections Cited
69A, 250, 54F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
(Assessment Year: 2015-16) Mukeshbhai Kashiram Vaghari, Income Tax Officer, Vs. 3/2/13, Shala No.4, Ward-3(1)(2), Vagjhari Fali, Ahmedabad. Dalwadi Fali, Viramgam, Ahmedabad-382150. [PAN :ANMP7912 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, AR Respondent by: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.06.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated17.02.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
1. The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is against law, equity & justice.
2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by the Ld.AO in contravention of law and instruction of CBDT.
Mukesh K Vaghari Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 2– 3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law And on facts not allowing VC hearing inspite of specific request.
4. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and facts passing order considering that appellant has not submitted any reply before him though appellant has filed written submission on 30.01.2025 in pursuance of notice u/s.250 of the Act.
The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not passing order in regards to validity of reopening of assessment challenged by appellant.
The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.69A of the Act by Ld.AO of Rs.60,00,000/- for cash deposit in bank.
The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the addition made u/s.69A of the Act by Ld.AO of Rs.60,01,000/- for bank FDR.
The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.69A of the Act of Rs.17,50,000/- by the Ld.AO in respect of sale of agriculture land.
The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made u/s.69A of the Act of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by Ld.AO which was erroneously disclosed as gift in return of income without any corresponding transaction.
The Ld.CIT A.O has not allowed deduction u/s.54F claimed by appellant before him.
The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds of appeal before final appeal.
3. On going through the record, we find that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish any substantial evidence/document to substantiate its claim. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We also find that the assessee has failed to furnish reply and supporting evidence even before the Assessing Officer with regard Mukesh K Vaghari Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 3– to the sources of cash deposits. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that, given an opportunity, all the details/clarification/explanation would be provided to the revenue authorities. Having gone through the fact, we hold that the no prejudice will be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for conducting assessment de-novo. The assessee shall submit all the relevant document and bank statement before the Assessing Officer and comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 26.06.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 26.06.2025 MV Mukesh K Vaghari Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2015-16 - 4– आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy