PARMESHWAR RAMADHAR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE , NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4316/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 November 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The appellant was directed to cooperate in expediting the appeal proceedings and to provide necessary explanations and documents. The CIT(A) was instructed to pass a speaking order after considering the submissions and documents.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 36 lakhs on account of on-money paid for the purchase of immovable property. The appellant failed to appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) despite multiple opportunities, leading to the confirmation of the AO's addition. The appellant's Chartered Accountant cited health issues for his inability to attend the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of on-money for property purchase is correct, especially when the assessee failed to appear before the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

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 Akshay Shah
For Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Hearing: 14.10.2024
1.

In the above cited appeal, the learned Assessing Officer (AO for short) has made an addition of Rs. 36 lakhs as on-money paid for purchase of immovable property under section 69A of the Income Tax Act (Act for short) as “undisclosed money”.

2.

Before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [the Ld. CIT(A) for short], the appellant did not appear even though four opportunities were given to the appellant to substantiate his grounds of appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that since the appellant has not furnished any reply nor he sought any adjournment, addition made by the Ld. AO was confirmed.

3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A), the appellant filed an appeal before the ITAT stating that the Chartered Accountant who presents the appellant had major health issues of spine and he was advised to take complete bed rest and because of this reason only the Chartered Accountant could not attend the appeal. In view of the same, Ld. AR of the appellant has pleaded before the ITAT that one more opportunity may be given to explain his case to prove that the addition made by the Ld. AO is incorrect.

4.

Ld DR has opposed the plea of the ld. AR and relied on the order of the Ld. AO.

5.

After perusing the assessment order and grounds of the appeal before the ITAT and after hearing the pleading of Ld. AR of the appellant, it is decided to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to appellant that he should cooperate in expediting the appeal proceedings and file whatever explanation he wanted. After getting explanation and any other documents from the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order on facts.

6.

The appellant of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 6TH November, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →