BAPU RAMCHANDRA KAMBLE,CHEMBUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-34(1)(6),MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4511/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 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 acknowledged the Assessee's non-compliance but, considering the peculiar facts and for substantial justice, decided to set aside the impugned order.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.12,54,000/- as unexplained cash credit. The Assessee challenged this before the Ld. Commissioner but made no compliance despite several opportunities, leading to an ex-parte dismissal.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal against the ex-parte order of dismissal due to non-compliance should be allowed, and if so, on what conditions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Srinivas P., Sr. A.R
Hearing: 27.11.2024Pronounced: 27.11.2024

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.07.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld.

Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 19.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act has made the addition of Rs.12,54,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

3.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, in spite of affording 5 opportunities, except seeking adjournment on one occasion, made no compliance. Therefore, in the absence of any written submissions and documents the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal of the Assessee by passing ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine but not on merit.

4.

The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before this Tribunal.

The Assessee has failed to demonstrate the plausible reasons for the delay. Though the conduct of the Assessee seems to be non-compliant and therefore the Assessee does not deserve any leniency, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the Assessee has failed to demonstrate any plausible reason for non appearance/non compliance before the Ld. Commissioner, hence for the just decision and substantial justice this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- in the Revenue Department under “other heads” and without claiming any exemption/disallowance of the same, but within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. It is clarified that in case of subsequent default the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner in the aforesaid terms.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.11.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →