NOZER CURSETJI DASTUR,MUMBAI vs. ITO(IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5279/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 February 2018AY 2005-065 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the application for additional evidence under Rule 46A. The CIT(A) was asked to pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding an addition made by the AO under Section 69. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in not considering evidence submitted under Rule 46A for additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's application for leading additional evidence under Rule 46A. The merits of the addition under Section 69 were not decided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain, Shri Suman Kumar

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

1.

The present Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai

Nozer Curset Ji Dastur dated 10.02.14 for AY 2005-06 on the grounds mentioned herein below:- Being aggrieved by the order dated of 10th of February, 2014 received on 24th June, 2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai (herein after referred to as the 011(A)'], the Appellant begs to prefer the instant appeal on following amongst other grounds which are in alternative and without prejudice to each other:

1. Addition u/s 69: Rs. 10,00,000/- 1.1 The learned CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on an erroneous basis that the source of investment is not explained although all the necessary evidence was filed in the course of proceedings.

1.2 The learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate and consider the provision of section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not attracted since the Appellant has offered explanation about the nature and source of investments supported by documentary evidence which the CIT(A) erred in not considering these evidence and application

Nozer Curset Ji Dastur made under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963.

The appellant prays for following reliefs (a) this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the AO to delete the addition made u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

(b) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.

2.

At the outset Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee although has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the additions made by AO u/s 69 of the I.T. Act but at the same time vide ground no. 1.2, the Ld. AR drawn our attention that CIT(A) erred in not considering the application filed by the assessee under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules 1963 for leading additional evidence. Therefore, at this stage it was requested by Ld. AR to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the application filed by assessee under rule 46A for leading additional evidence.

3.

Be that as it may, without commenting anything on the merits of the other grounds raised by the assessee, we are of the Nozer Curset Ji Dastur considered view that the interest of justice would be met in remitting the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate and decide on merits the request made by the assessee under rule 46A of I.T. Rules 1963 by passing speaking order. It is needless here to mention that before passing the order, the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the issue, which shall be adjudicated by the CIT(A) independently in accordance with law. With these directions, this ground raised

by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5. In the net result, the appeal filed by the assesses is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Feb, 2018 Sd/- Sd/- (G. S. Pannu) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 21.02.2018 Sr.PS. Dhananjay

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →