KALPANA DINESH JAGSOTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 29 (2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6650/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 September 2021AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unaware of the proceedings due to a change in residence. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions due to a residential shift. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69A and Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was given adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities and whether the additions were made without proper verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VIRTUAL COURT

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HONBLE

For Respondent: Ms. Smita Varma
Hearing: 02.09.2021Pronounced: 02.09.2021

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM)

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–40, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 15.05.2019 for the A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds in his appeal: -

(A.Y: 2011-12) Kalpana Dinesh Jagsota “a. The Appellant was unaware of the hearing and final order of the appeal case due to redevelopment and shifting of residential flat. b. The Ld. A.O. erred in law and facts:

1. 1. In not providing the Appellant with Reasons recorded for Re- opening of Assessment U/s.147 and in having made the Assessment on the basis of his REASON TO SUSPECT.

2. In simply making an addition U/S.69A of Rs. 1,92,3007- without making further enquiries on the information received.

3. In simply making an addition U/s.69 of Rs.5700-/ without making further enquiries on the information.

4.

In making the addition without verifying the payment of IPO Application for Rs. 1,98,000/- made by Hasmukh Jagsota (Brother in law of the Appellant) on behalf of Appellant.”

3.

Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of this appeal on hearing the Ld. DR on merits.

4. We have heard Ld. DR, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Ld.CIT(A) order, we find that even though the Ld.CIT(A) provided opportunity on several occasions assessee could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that assessee should be given one more opportunity of being heard. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo

(A.Y: 2011-12) Kalpana Dinesh Jagsota adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and shall cooperate with the appellate proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments. Thus, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the virtual court on 02.09.2021.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →