KALE ENTERTAINMENT & RESORT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 32(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 545/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 February 2020AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence provided by the assessee, including loan confirmations and bank statements, which were not filed before the Assessing Officer. These evidences were considered to be crucial for the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte earlier. The assessee later sought recall of the order due to non-representation. The addition was made under Section 68 for unsecured loans due to lack of confirmations from the creditor.

What were the issues?

Whether the additional evidence furnished by the assessee should be admitted and the case remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, especially when the Assessing Officer had accepted similar evidence to drop penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA, HONBLE & SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLEShri Sashikant G. Goyal Shri K.C. Selvamani

For Appellant: Shri Sashikant G. Goyal
For Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamani
Hearing: 16.12.2019Pronounced: 26.02.2020

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 27.10.2014 for the A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

On a perusal of the record we noticed that this appeal has been disposed off exparte by the Tribunal by order dated 30.08.2017 for non-prosecution. The Tribunal has gone into the merits of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the order of the Tribunal

(A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. Kale Entertainment & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., dated 30.08.2017 was recalled in M.A. No. 205/Mum/2018 as there was no representation by the assessee or his counsel when the matter was called for hearing on 06.06.2017.

3.

Subsequently, when the matter came up for hearing on 16.12.2019, at the outset the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that this is a case where addition was made u/s. 68 of the Act in respect of loan creditor for want of confirmations. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the course of the assessment proceedings though notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to the creditor M/s. Bhakti Gems to verify the genuineness of the unsecured loan provided to the assessee the loan creditor could not respond as there were some differences between assessee and the creditor. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that even the confirmations could not be obtained from the creditor due to which the addition was sustained by the Assessing Officer and also the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that in the course of the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer the assessee has provided confirmations from M/s. Bhakti Gems, copy of Income-tax return acknowledgement of Mr. Vasant P. Medida proprietor of M/s. Bhakti Gems and copy of bank statements and submitted that the loan

(A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. Kale Entertainment & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., transaction is genuine. The creditor identified, the credit worthiness of the creditor was also proved by providing Income Tax Returns and bank statements. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that considering these evidences the Assessing Officer dropped the penalty proceedings by treating the loan transaction as genuine. Before us the assessee furnished additional evidences in the form of loan confirmations, bank statements, copy of Income-tax return acknowledgment and submitted that since these evidences go to the root of the matter, it is requested that the said evidences may be admitted and the same may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, especially when the Assessing Officer has accepted these evidences and dropped the penalty proceedings.

5.

Ld. DR has no serious objection in restoring these evidences to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and completion of assessment denovo.

6.

On hearing both the sides and perusing the additional evidences furnished before us, we are of the view that these additional evidences filed by the assessee shall go to the root of the matter and therefore in the interest of justice the same are admitted. As these evidences were not filed before the Assessing Officer we remand these additional evidences

(A.Y. 2011-12) M/s. Kale Entertainment & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., to the file of the Assessing Officer by restoring the addition to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with law.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 26th February, 2020

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →