What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer should re-examine the issue afresh. This includes providing the seized materials to the assessee and granting an adequate opportunity for the assessee to present submissions and evidence.

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of ₹.22,00,110/- made on account of alleged cash payment for warehouse acquisition, based on seized documents. The assessee contended that the seized document was not provided, the payment details were inconsistent, and natural justice was violated.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on the basis of seized documents was justified without providing the document to the assessee and whether principles of natural justice were followed during assessment.

Vivek M. Mangla, Thane vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Hearing: 04.04.2018Pronounced: 15.06.2018

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai dated 21.03.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is in respect of upholding the addition of ₹.22,00,110/- on account of alleged cash payment to Shri Mayur Suchak for acquisition of warehouse relying on certain seized documents.

(A.Y: 2008-09) Vivek M. Mangla 3. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, copy of the alleged seized paper was never provided to the assessee in spite of specific request during the Assessment Proceedings. It is submitted that the alleged payment of cash in the year under appeal was not corroborated by any independent evidence. It is also submitted that the reasons recorded reveal the alleged payment to be made to M/s. Maus Consulting Pvt. Ltd., whereas the assessee had no business transaction with the said company. It is further submitted that the alleged cash payment could not have been made in Financial Year 2007-08 when the Ld.CIT(A) has stated in the order that first payment was made by the assessee on 24.06.2008 which date is also supposedly mentioned on the seized paper and therefore the addition in the year under appeal i.e. 2008- 09 was not justified. It is further submitted that the remand report by the Assessing Officer was received after completion of hearing by the Ld.CIT(A) and without granting a copy of the same to the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order thereby denying the assessee suitable opportunity to rebut the adverse inferences resulting in breach of principles of equality, fair play and natural justice. Therefore, it is submitted that the issue may be remitted to the Assessing Officer for examining afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee including the seized material in the interest of justice.

(A.Y: 2008-09) Vivek M. Mangla 4. Ld. DR has no serious objections in examining the issue once again by the Ld. Assessing Officer, with reference to the seized materials and for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law after hearing the assessee.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that Assessing Officer shall examine the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing copies of seized materials and decide the issue, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee may furnish its submissions and contentions before the Assessing Officer and taking into all the submissions and evidences the Assessing Officer shall decide the issue in accordance with law. Thus, this matter is restored to the file Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in the light of our above observations.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 15th June, 2018.

VIVEK M. MANGLA,THANE vs. DCIT CIR 3, THANE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments