Loading judgment…
Facts
Two assessees, Shilpi Goyal and Sunil Kumar Goyal, filed four appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 and 2012-13, which had upheld original assessment orders. The assessments were re-opened based on information about investments made with M/s U B Investment. Sunil Kumar Goyal's appeals were filed with a delay of 151 days, for which condonation was sought.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for Sunil Kumar Goyal, accepting the reason of not having e-filing password from a previous consultant. It rejected the argument about inconsistency between the reasons for re-opening and the subject matter of assessment. However, finding that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had discussed the documents submitted by the assessees regarding the source of funds for the investments, the Tribunal remanded all four appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper verification.
Key Issues
1. Whether to condone the delay in filing appeals. 2. Whether there was an inconsistency in the reasons for re-opening assessments and the subsequent assessment orders. 3. Whether the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) failed to consider documents proving the source of investment funds.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH (VIRTUAL
Before: Dr. MITHA LAL. MEENA & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR
In view of the above discussion, all the four appeals are disposed off, for statistical purpose and the matters are restored to the files of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, and in accordance with law. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 by placing the details on the notice board.