What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after considering the evidence and providing an opportunity of hearing.

The assessee, a retired employee, had a Time Deposit of Rs. 2,00,000 and received salary income. The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) made additions without considering evidence submitted by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred by not considering the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee before making additions.

Vimala Kolluri vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2018

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

Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.R

For Respondent: Ms. Arju Certadia, D.R

Hearing: 15.01.2018Pronounced: 07.02.2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Vimala Kolluri, Income Tax Officer-15(2)(2), C/o. Bharat Heavy Electricals Room No.110, 1st Floor, Ltd., Cross Road-C, Matru Mandir, Vs. Road No.1, Mumbai – 400 007 Plot – D, MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 PAN: ANBPK8683P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Arju Certadia, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2018 O R D E R Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.07.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2011-12.

The short facts of the case are as under: The assessee is retired employee of Bharat Heavy Electricals Company. During the year under consideration, it was found that assessee has made Time Deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and assessee has also received salary of Rs.10,99,157/- from M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Assessee did not submit any evidence before the

During the course of hearing, the Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee has produced the evidence by way of paper book before the AO which is copy of acknowledgement of filing the return for A.Y. 2010-11 along with form No.16. Assessee also filed copy of letter along with letter dated 18.11.13 which is issued by HDFC Bank and bank statement. Though all the evidences were submitted the matter was decided without considering the same. Therefore, she requested the matter to be restored to the AO to decide the matter afresh after considering the evidences.

The Ld. D.R. objected to it.

Having heard both the parties, I find that assessee has submitted copy of acknowledgement from page 125 and copy of letter from HDFC Bank at page No.629. I am of the opinion that AO and the Ld. CIT(A) have not considered these documentary evidences. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, I restore this issue back to the file of AO and AO is directed to decide the matter afresh and pass the order after giving due opportunity of hearing.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.02.2018.

VIMALA KOLLURI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(2)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments