BRAHMANAND PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 426/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 February 2018AY 2003-044 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking in proper adjudication. The Departmental Representative conceded that the issue could be remitted back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) involved several additions to income, including undisclosed sources, unexplained investments, and unexplained money, as well as disallowance of expenses and interest. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a speaking order, citing the assessee's failure to avail opportunities and pursue the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and not admitting additional evidence, leading to a non-speaking order confirming the AO's additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SRI MAHAVIR SINGH

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)] in appeal No. CIT(A)-32/ITO-21(3)(1)/IT-16/06-07 dated 18-11-2009. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, ward 21(3)-1, Mumbai (in short ITO) for the assessment year 2003-04 vide order dated 27-03-2006 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

The first issue in this appeal of assessee raised is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in not admitting the additional evidences on the issue of the following additions: -

1.

Additions of ₹ 12,04,100/- as income from undisclosed sources under section 68.

2. Addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- and ₹ 2,28,096/- as unexplained investment under section 69.

3.

Addition of ₹ 5,80,800/- as unexplained money under section 69A.

4.

Disallowance of expenses

Salary payable ₹ 50,800 Diesel & Petrol Expenses ₹ 72,290 Depreciation on motor car ₹ 19,270 Expense on TRO taxes ₹ 82,015

5.

Addition of ₹ 60,000/- as income from undisclosed sources under section 68

6. Disallowance of interest on self occupied property of ₹ 11,413/-

3. According to the CIT(A), the assessee has not allowed the reasonable opportunity of being heard and for this he raised the following three grounds: - “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity

2. the learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidences in the case.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in stating that appellant has no desire to pursue the appeal.”

4. At the outset, I have gone through the order of CIT(A) and noticed that the order of CIT(A) is totally non-speaking and he just simply confirming the additions by observing in Para 4.3 as under: - “4.3 It is very apparent from the remand report that not only has the AO opposed the production of additional evidence before the undersigned he has gone ahead with giving the appellant further opportunity. Once again, the appellant has failed to avail the opportunity. This clearly established that the appellant has no desire to pursue his appeal. Under the circumstances, the estimations made under various heads by the AO cannot be interfered with.”

5. When the above finding was confronted to the learned Sr. Departmental Representative, she fairly conceded that the issue can be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

6.

In term of the above, I am of the view that let the issue remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) who will pass speaking order after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is set aside and matter is remanded to his file for fresh adjudication. The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 23-02-2018

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →