MR. PRAMOD KUMAR DALMIA (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MR. KAPIL DALMIA),MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3417/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 June 2021AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the orders of the AO and CIT(A) regarding the filing of returns and the opportunities provided to the assessee. Considering the representation by the legal heir and potential communication gaps, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of the deceased assessee for AY 2006-07 based on AIR information regarding cash deposits in a savings bank account. The legal heir claimed the deposits were from land sale, but the AO added back Rs. 7.5 lacs as unexplained cash credit for lack of supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 was justified without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee's legal heir to present evidence. Whether there were procedural lapses in the assessment and appellate orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JM)

Hearing: 15/06/2021Pronounced: 25/06/2021

आदेश प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आयकर आय क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy//

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →