What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the interest of natural justice, the assessee's prayer to consider the evidence deserves to be accepted. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the file of the AO.

The AO made an addition of Rs. 33.85 lakhs on account of bank deposits as the assessee provided no explanation. The assessee furnished additional evidence before the CIT(A), but it was not admitted, and the appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to admit additional evidence furnished by the assessee, thereby causing grave injustice.

M/S. Ayesha Jamal vs ITO | ITAT Bangalore 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC, “B’’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B.R BASKARAN

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel to Dept

Hearing: 05.11.2019

O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18-03-2019 passed by Ld CIT(A)-13, Bengaluru and it relates to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without admitting the additional evidences furnished by the assessee.

I heard the parties and perused the record. The AO completed the assessment of the year under consideration to the best of his judgment by making addition of Rs.33.85 lakhs relating to bank deposits, since the assessee did not offer any explanation. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished evidences as additional evidences, but the Ld CIT(A) refused to admit them and accordingly confirmed the addition made by the AO.

The Ld A.R pleaded before me that the assessee could not appear before the AO for reasons beyond his control and hence she furnished all the relevant details before Ld CIT(A). The Ld A.R submitted that the first appellate authority was not justified in refusing to admit them and thus grave injustice has been caused to the assessee. Accordingly he prayed that the issue may be restored to the AO for examining it afresh by duly considering the evidences.

I heard Ld D.R and perused the record. In the interest of natural justice, I am of the view that the prayer of the assessee deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the AO for examining it afresh by duly considering the evidences that were/may be furnished by the assessee. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard, the AO may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 5th November, 2019.

M/S. AYESHA JAMAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments