SUNIL BANDOPANT PAWAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 116/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 July 2022AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a single ground regarding advance tax payment had been restored to the AO in the first appellate proceedings. Since the current grounds were not raised in the first appeal, the Tribunal found no merit in them.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 was filed against an order that sustained an addition of Rs. 1,04,33,025/- made by the AO. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the revenue was represented.

What were the issues?

Whether the grounds raised in the current appeal were properly considered in the first appellate proceedings, and if not, whether they could be entertained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasanani

This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A), Pune-5, Pune‟s order dated 10-08-2018 passed in case No.PN/CIT(A)-5/I.T.O Wd-12(1), Pune/10681/2016-17, in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟.

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee‟s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

1. 1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the complete addition of Rs.1,04,33,025/- as made by the AO computing impugned income us 68 of the Act – - Without giving any opportunity of being heard since none of the notice is being received by client from CIT Appeal (5) - and therefore, the entire addition needs to be deleted being erroneous, improper, illegal and bad-in-law.

2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,04,33,025/- made by the AO by treating advances received as income us 68.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify the above grounds of appeal, if necessary on the basis of written submissions and personal presentation to be made at the time of hearing.

4. We notice with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee had raised a single ground of advance tax payment of Rs.6 lacs before the CIT(A) which has been restored back to the Assessing Officer. Faced with this situation, we find no merit in the assessee‟s instant substantive grounds which had not been raised in the first appellate proceedings. Rejected accordingly.

5.

This assessee‟s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th July, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; ददिधांक Dated : 27th July, 2022 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीऱधर्थी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent; 2.

3. The CIT(A), Pune-5, Pune 4. The Pr.CIT, Pune-4, Pune विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, पुणे “B” / 5. DR „B‟, ITAT, Pune 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

Date 1. Draft dictated on 12-07-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 22-07-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →