ATUL PAWAR,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4519/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 December 2019AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to explain the additional evidence, acknowledging negligence in not appearing before the AO. The appeal was allowed subject to payment of costs.

What were the facts?

During a search, unexplained Fixed Deposits of Rs. 47,50,000/- were found. The assessee filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) to explain the source of these funds, but failed to appear during remand proceedings. The CIT(A) rejected the evidence and confirmed the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present additional evidence for unexplained investments, despite prior non-compliance during remand proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AR
For Respondent: Shri S.Michael Jerald, DR

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT, Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →