SUBHASH CHANDRA KESHAN ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3348/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 November 2024AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryN/A

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to submit documentary evidence during the assessment and first appellate proceedings. Considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's claim of medical exigency, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a *de novo* assessment. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant evidence, and the AO is to decide the issues on merits in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case for AY 2011-12 was reopened under Section 148 due to MNS data indicating an immovable property transaction, and no return of income was filed. The Assessing Officer completed a best judgment assessment under Section 144 read with 147, making additions for undisclosed salary income, alleged STCG from property sale, and interest income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, rejecting additional evidence submitted without a proper petition under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962.

What were the issues?

Validity of reopening of assessment under Section 148; Justification of additions for undisclosed salary, alleged STCG from property sale, and interest income; and the CIT(A)'s rejection of additional evidence under Rule 46A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Bandi
For Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Hearing: 21.08.2024Pronounced: 14.11.2024

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.11.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : 14.11.2024 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →