MAHESH VISHWAS TUDAVEKAR,KOLAR vs. ITO, WARD - 1, BELGAUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 336/PAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH PANAJI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 17.11.2025Pronounced: 17.11..2025

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 17.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 17.11..2025 ORDER

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:

1.

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 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 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 Mahesh Vishwas Tudavekar. cooperate in submitting the information. And, the grounds of appeal

of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →