MAHESH VISHWAS TUDAVEKAR,KOLAR vs. ITO, WARD - 1, BELGAUM
Facts
The assessee, a salaried employee, filed a return for AY 2017-18 claiming a Chapter VIA deduction. The Assessing Officer, after scrutiny, made additions for excess salary, disallowed the Chapter VIA deduction, and estimated profit on securities transactions. This resulted in an increased assessment of total income, which was partially sustained by the CIT(A), leading to the assessee appealing to the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in partly confirming the addition of estimated profit on securities transactions. Considering the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, which included substantial new documents, the Tribunal decided to admit the additional evidence. The disputed issues, along with the additional evidence, were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity of hearing for the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the estimated profit on securities transactions without considering all evidence, and if additional evidence should be admitted under Rule 29 of ITAT Rules for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Chapter VIA, Rule 29 of ITAT Rules, Rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules 1963
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PANAJI
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. No.336/PAN/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 ) Mahesh Vishwas Tudavekar, Vs ITO-Ward-5, 1505,Kudasammanavar Galli, Feroj khimjibhai cpx, . Bailhongal, Civil Hospital Road Belgavi-591102, Belagavi-590001. Karnataka. Karnataka. PAN .No. AIWPT1145P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)
Assessee by Shri.Girishkumar.AR Revenue by Smt.Rijula Uniyal.Sr.DR
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 17.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 17.11..2025 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A)-12 Mumbai passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) partially sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse is a salaried employee.The assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 30-07-2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.3,42,920/- after claiming chapter VIA deduction of Rs.13,90,000/-. Subsequently the case was
2 ITA. No.336/PAN/2025 Mahesh Vishwas Tudavekar. selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and the Assessing Officer(A.O) has issued notice u/sec143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act to substantiate the claims supporting the return of income filed and there was no proper compliance. The A.O dealt on the facts and made addition of (i)excess salary income of Rs.6,43,839/- (ii) disallowed the claim under Chapter VIA of the Act of Rs13,90,000/-and (iii) estimated profit@8% on the securities transactions which works out to Rs.1,53,378/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs25,30,137/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2019. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and granted partial relief and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in partly confirming the action of the A.O overlooking the facts and submissions of the assessee in the proceedings on the on the securities transactions . Further the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and has filed an application for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 29 of ITAT rules. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the evidences were not
3 ITA. No.336/PAN/2025 Mahesh Vishwas Tudavekar. examined by the lower authorities and the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The crux of the disputed issues that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of estimated profit@8% on the securities transactions of the assessee in the F.Y.2016-17 as the transactions are not supported with the documentary evidences. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has submitted the details as called for by the authorities. The assessee is filling the application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of ITAT rules along with securities transactions details, financial statements, client global derivatives segment, insurance payment details and Form.No.16 of both the employer companies and other details placed at Page 6 to 35 of the addition evidence application which could not be submitted before the lower authorities. Further the evidences play a important role in decision making in the adjudicating proceedings. Therefore considering the facts, circumstances and additional evidences, the assessee should not suffer for non filing of material information, as the evidences play a vital role in decision making and admit the additional evidence. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, restore the disputed issues along with the additional evidence to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall
4 ITA. No.336/PAN/2025 Mahesh Vishwas Tudavekar. cooperate in submitting the information. And, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 17/11/2025 as per rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules 1963 Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji Dated: 17/11/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar)ITAT, Panaji
5 ITA. No.336/PAN/2025 Mahesh Vishwas Tudavekar. Initial Date 1. Draft dictated on PS 2. Draft placed before author PS
Draft proposed & placed before PS the second member Draft discussed/approved by 4. PS Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the 9. Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed
