VIJAY CHIMANLAL NAYYAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5197/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2019AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after examining the new evidence and providing a hearing opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed his return of income, but the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for cessation of liability and disallowance of expenses under Section 144 due to non-compliance. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was also dismissed for non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence should be admitted at the appellate stage and if the AO should re-examine the additions made due to non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Anil Thakrar, AR
For Respondent: Mr. B. Satyanarayan Raju, DR
Hearing: 16/01/2019Pronounced: 30/01/2019

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] and arises out of completed assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

2.

The ground of appeal

filed by the assessee read as under:

1. The appellant is an individual. Filed his return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.5,58,930/-.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.45,26,029/- as cessassion of liability u/s 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,92,457/- being disallowance of 25% of expenses claimed by appellant in his return of income. 4. The appellant request to delete the addition confirmed by the CIT(A). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2012-13 on 03.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.5,58,930/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 27.03.2015 framed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act computing the income at Rs.54,77,413/-. The additions made by the AO include (i) cessation of liability of Rs.45,26,029/- and (ii) disallowance of Rs.3,92,457/- on account of various expenses. The AO had to resort to the assessment u/s 144 because of non-compliance on the part of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that again there was non-compliance by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee files a Paper Book (P/B) which contains inter alia copies of confirmations and copy of affidavit. It is submitted by him that these documents could not be filed by the assessee before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) because of health problems of the appellant and these additional evidence may be admitted for adjudication.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →