BHAVIN MANOHARBHAI PARMAR,MEHSANA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, MEHSANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1826/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2025AY 2016-17Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer is allowed to examine the details/explanation submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the appellate order confirming an addition of Rs. 1,35,76,381/- for unexplained deposit. The assessee failed to submit substantial documents and evidence regarding the cash deposit to the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of details and explanations, considering the assessee's failure to provide them earlier.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 69

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

For Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR
Hearing: 05.05.2025Pronounced: 06.05.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bhavin Manoharbhai Parmar, Income Tax Officer, Vs. B/104, GaNESH-2 Apartment, Ward-5, Kadi, Mehsana. Mehsana-382715. [PAN :CSBPP0512 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Adjournment Application filed Respondent by: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr DR Date of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:

1. The assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s.250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for.

2.

The assessment officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the addition of Rs.1,38,32,749/-. The same deserves to be deleted. Bhavin M Parmar Vs. DCIT Asst. Year : 2016-17 - 2– 3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing.

3. At the outset, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer since the assessee failed to submit any substantial documents regarding the cash deposit in the account maintained with Sri Renuka Mata Multi State Co-op Credit Society Ltd. Vijapur amounting to Rs.1,35,76,381/-. Thus, the addition on account of unexplained deposit u/s.69 was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). We also find that assessee even failed to submit any evidence in support of his claim before the Assessing Officer. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an adjournment application. Having gone through the fact, we hold that 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 after examine the details/submission and take decision as per the provision of the Act. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Assessing officer from time to time without seeking any unnecessary adjournments.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →