NILESH BANDU MHATRE,DAHISAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted an opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had not issued any notice of hearing and decided the issue based solely on the available record. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a detailed order on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a freelancing Contractor, filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 showing an income of Rs. 5,23,210/-. His gross revenue was Rs. 6,97,620/-, deposited in his savings account. The case was selected for scrutiny, and an addition of Rs. 35,50,000/- was made. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT is primarily on the grounds that expenses of Rs. 20,67,006/- were wrongly disallowed and Rs. 35,50,000/- was wrongly added as undisclosed income.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the denial of an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by the CIT(A), violating the principles of natural justice. The secondary issues involved the disallowance of expenses and the addition of undisclosed income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Sections of the IT Act were not explicitly mentioned in the provided text for specific disallowances or additions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, AM
Date of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 10/03/2023 passed by the Ld.NFAC Delhi, for assessment year, 2016-17 on following grounds of appeal:
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in disallowing expenses of Rs.20,67,006/- and as such may be allowed. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in adding Rs.35,50,000/-as undisclosed income and as such may be deleted. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not provided an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. I reserved my right to add, amend or altered above ground of appeal.
Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is a freelancing Contractor who renders techno Legal Consultancy services and resolves matters in disputes. He filed his return of Income for the assessment Year 2016-2017 on 28-01-2017 declaring Income of Rs.5,23,210/-. During this A.Y 2016-17, the assessee had gross revenue of Rs.6,97,620/- from various clients, deposited in the Bank of Baroda (his savings account). This case was selected for complete Scrutiny. The Ld.AO made Addition of Rs.35,50,000/- in the assessment order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
