Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained money, unexplained investments, and undisclosed long-term capital gain. The assessee had failed to provide necessary documentation to the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to provide substantiating documents to both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). However, to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without adequate opportunity to the assessee, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment to provide such an opportunity.
Sections Cited
69A, 69, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Madhurika Dilipkumar Shah, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Maitri Bunglows, Ward-1, Ipcowala Marg, Nadiad. NKN Road, Nadiad-387001. [PAN :AVMPS2638 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ankit Parikh, AR Respondent by: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.05.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
The Appellate order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) is without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and against the principal of natural justice.
The Appellate order passed by the Learned CIT (Appeals) is one sided with the pre-conceive mind set for the revenue. Madhurika D Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2–
3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by making an addition of Rs.51.76 lacs as unexplained money deposited under Section 69A of the act without knowing the real facts and sources of the deposit of cash by the appellant.
4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and facts by making an addition of Rs.76 lacs as Unexplained Investments under section 69 on account of purchase of immovable property which is actually bought from sales proceeds of immovable property and cash deposited in the bank account during the year under review. 5. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in erred in law and facts by making an addition of Rs.30 lacs on account of undisclosed long-term capital gain which is in reality is a capital loss and not gain.
On going through the record, we find that notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued on 04.01.2021, 09.01.2024, 25.01.2024, 28.03.2024 & 11.06.2024 by the Ld. CIT(A), requesting assessee to furnish a detailed submission to substantiate its claim. Despite sufficient time given, the assessee failed to respond to the above notices and not even submit any substantial documents with regard to the unexplained money. Hence, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing officer. We also find that the assessee has failed to furnish reply and supporting evidence even before the Assessing Officer. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment application and consequently 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 comply with the notices issued by the authorities without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Madhurika D Shah Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3–
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.