INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), MYSORE vs. SRI CHANGALARAYA REDDY, MYSORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 702/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 July 2019AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the issue to the CIT(A) to call for a remand report from the AO. The AO is to verify the details submitted by the assessee, and the assessee must produce all necessary documents.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of an addition made by the AO for unexplained investment in teak wood. The CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence, including an affidavit claiming a gift of teak wood, without allowing the AO an opportunity to examine it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the AO an opportunity for examination, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN & SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

PER SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER present appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 31/01/19 passed by Ld. CIT (A), Mysore for assessment year 2015- 16 on following grounds of appeal:

ITA No.702(B)/2019 2

1.

The Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.79,36,250/- u/s.69 of the I.T.Act, 1961 towards unexplained investment admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee without affording an opportunity to the AO to examine the same under Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules, 1962.

2.

The Ld.CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidences in the form of an affidavit purported to be signed by the assessee's grandfather who was aged about 99 years old and claimed to have made a gift of Rs.79,36,250/- in the form of teak wood which requires proper verification.

3.

The Ld.CIT(A) erred in relying on the Affidavit even though the AO pointed out that the donor had not mentioned quantum/volume of wood given by way of gift.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →