SHREE SAI INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(3)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3990/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The appellant is directed to furnish all details to the CIT(A) promptly. The CIT(A) is instructed to consider all facts and evidence submitted by the appellant and adjudicate the matter accordingly.

What were the facts?

The appeal concerns additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for suppression of closing stock and cash deposits, and for unproved credit due to lack of identity, financial capacity, and genuineness of the lender. The assessee did not respond to the CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities, leading to dismissal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper adjudication, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “H(SMC

Before: Shri Amit Shukla (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi
For Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Hearing: 15.10.2024Pronounced: 06.11.2024
1.

The two main additions in the above captioned appeal relates to suppression of closing stock and cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant firm.

2.

During the hearing proceedings before the Bench, Ld. AR of the appellant has stated that the additions were made in this case on protective basis and the main additions were made in the case of Mr. Anil B. Jain. Apart from these additions, the learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO for short) made an addition of Rs. 1.33 crores towards unproved credit because the appellant could not prove identity of lender, financial capacity of the lender and genuineness of the transactions. The appellant took the matter to learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [the Ld. CIT(A) for short] and before the Ld. CIT(A) appellant did not respond even though four opportunities were given to substantiate his grounds of appeal

. Hence, the 2. Shree Sai International Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant by adjudicating that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

3. As mentioned above, Ld. AR of the appellant has stated that the main addition/substantive addition was made in the hands of Mr. Anil B. Jain, was set aside to the Ld. CIT(A), it was pleaded that this matter is also be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh after taking all his submissions.

4. Ld DR supported the orders of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). After hearing both sides, it is decided to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The appellant is directed to furnish all the details to the Ld. CIT(A) without further delay and help the Revenue in completing the proceedings at the earliest without seeking further adjournment. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to take into consideration all facts and evidence filed by the appellant and adjudicate the matter as per law.

5. The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 6th November, 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 →