Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Jitendrasinh Bharatsinh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chauhan, Silvassa Ward, Silvassa Plot No.9-Naroli, Athal, Silvasa, Income Tax Officer, D&NH-396230 NFAC, Delhi [PAN No.ABKPC8431C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 08.08.2024 passed for A.Y. 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to dismiss appellant’s appeal ex parte and that too without going into merits of the case as per the mandate of Section 250(6) the I.T. Act. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to confirm A.O.’s addition u/s 68 of the Act for Rs.52,30,000/- being credit entry in appellant’s capital account with his proprietary concern namely M/s Shree Sai Transport.
Shri Jitendrasinh Bharatsinh Chauhan vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 2– 3. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to confirm A.O.’s addition of Rs. 1,24,039/- made on account of disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to earning of exempt income u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rule.
4. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to upheld A.O.’s action to charge income tax at higher rate as per Section 115BBe of the Act.”
The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has added capital of Rs. 52,30,000/- during the year and the assessee submitted that the source of such capital was from personal capital savings. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has not substantiated his claim of accumulation of capital accounts savings with any workings or any supporting documentary evidences. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 52,30,000/- as income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer also made disallowance under Section 14A amounting to Rs. 1,24,039/- to the income of the assessee.
In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) issued several notices of hearing but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A).
Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that looking into the quantum of additions, in the interest of justice, the assessee may be provided one more opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A) and he would Shri Jitendrasinh Bharatsinh Chauhan vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– be able to substantiate the source of such capital introduced in his books of accounts.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter is hereby restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under proviso to Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 07/03/2025