SANJAY DAYAL,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 738/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 August 2022AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had considered an entirely different issue than the one appealed. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the correct issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income disclosing Rs.1,99,520/-. The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of discrepancy between gross receipts in the return and Form 26AS. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, but considered a different issue.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly adjudicated the appeal when it considered an issue different from the one under appeal before it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh Khandelwal
For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Hearing: 29.08.2022Pronounced: 30.08.2022

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi’] dated 23.11.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “Income from other sources”. The return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 was filed on 17.07.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.1,99,520/-.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →