MULTIVENTURE ESTATES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O. 10(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 330/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a technical flaw in filing the appeal should not be a hurdle to justice. Since the CIT(A) did not decide the matter on merits, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09, which was dismissed for not being filed electronically. The assessee had filed the appeal manually within the due date. The CIT(A) did not decide the appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for not being filed electronically, and whether the addition made under Section 68 was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 09.05.2019Pronounced: 16.05.2019

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y.2008- 09.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed for AY 2008-09, holding the same to be not maintainable and invalid ab initio. A.Y.2008-09

2. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in not granting the appellant reasonable opportunity to rectify the defect in filing of appeal for AY 20080-09.

3. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the relevant mechanism to file the appeal electronically was not in place on 05.04.2016, when the appellant filed the appeal in paper format and therefore the appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal electronically. 4. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the re- opening of the assessment by issue of the notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2015 was not appropriate by law as there was no reason for the Ld. AO to hold a belief that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and therefore the re-opening of assessment was not justified and the asst. order flowing therefrom bad in law. 5. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act, 1961, on account of funds received from M/s. Vinamra Universal Traders Pvt. Ltd. was not justified by facts and by law and therefore such addition was required to be deleted.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 19.03.2009 for the A.Y. 2008-09 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.1,01,758/- under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has declared the Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.1,01,785/-. Thereafter, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 30.03.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee failed to explain cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- form M/s. Vinamra Universal Traders Pvt. Ltd. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.2,01,01,758/- Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an 2 A.Y.2008-09

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →