MUKESH KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6045/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 January 2018AY 2010-115 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted a contradiction in the impugned order regarding the assessee's submissions and directed that the issues require reconsideration. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary evidence before the Assessing Officer, who was instructed to provide an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared nil income which was processed under section 143(1). During assessment under section 143(3), the Assessing Officer added cash deposits and loans as income from undisclosed sources/unexplained cash credit. The assessee claimed the amounts were received from specific individuals and from bank withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer as income from undisclosed sources and unexplained cash credit were justified, and whether the assessee was provided with a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dhirendra Kumar, Shri Suman Kumar -DR
Hearing: 18/01/2018

आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/06/2014 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the addition of Rs.45,85,000/- deposited in bank being the cash received from Bhogilal Kalidas and Popatlal C.

1.

Shah as income from undisclosed sources and further treating Rs.8,39,908/-, loans received as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

2.

During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Direndra M. Shah, contended that proper opportunity was not provided to the assessee, which in violation of principle of natural justice. It was also contended that in the case of Shri Bhogilal Kalidas and Popatlal C. Shah, the loans/cash given to the assessee has been accepted though u/s 143(1) of the Act but still the matter requires fresh consideration so that truth may prevail and the necessary evidence may be produced. The ld. counsel invited our attention to certain paras of the impugned order showing some contradictions. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Shri Suman Kumar, contended that no such ground has been raised by the assessee but had no objection if the matter may be reexamined at the level of Ld. Assessing Officer.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared nil income on 29/03/2011, which was processed u/s 143(1) accepting the returned income. The income of the assessee is from share of profit and remuneration from partnership firm M/s S. Kantilal & Co., capital gains and income from other sources etc. The Ld. Assessing Officer while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit. The assessee vide letter dated 06/12/2012 explained that the amount of Rs.32,10,000/- and Rs.9,75,000/- were made by persons namely Bhogilal Kalidas and Popotal C.Shah respectively and the balance amount of Rs.29,43,000/- was out of withdrawals from the bank account. The Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition as income from undisclosed sources/unexplained cash credit.

We note from the impugned order (page-2) that the Mukesh C. Shah attended the proceedings and filed written submissions and also argued the matter, however, in para- 2.3.1 of the impugned order, there is an observation that the assessee did not made any submission and merely relied upon the grounds of appeal, thus, there is contradiction in the order. Considering the totality of facts, we are of the view that the issues involved (grounds raised before us) requires reconsideration. The assessee has filed an affidavit in support of his claim. The assessee is directed to furnish the necessary evidence, if any, in support of his claim before the Ld. Assessing Officer to substantiate his claim. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 18/01/2018.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →