ABDULRAZZAK KASIM SUMBAD,THANE vs. ACIT-2(1), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3126/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue on its merits after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, deposited Rs.12,81,000/- during demonetization. When asked to explain the source, the assessee claimed it was from land development business. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept this and added the sum to the assessee's income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and if the addition made by the AO was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Ms. Himani Buddhadev
For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, SR. D.R

O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act [the ‘Act’ in short]

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →