TEJAL NILESH SORTHI,NEAR CIVIL COURT,DAHANU ROAD,P vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, PALGHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1365/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 September 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (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 Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal in limine due to non-compliance. However, considering the facts, the Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner failed to decide on merits and thus remanded the case back for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.13,19,500/- as unexplained money and taxed it under section 115BBE. The Assessee challenged this before the Ld. Commissioner but failed to comply with notices and provide relevant documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits due to assessee's non-compliance, and if the case should be remanded for a fresh decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh Suaratwala, A.R
For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, SR D.R

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.01.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

In the instant case the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 12.12.2019 u/s 143(3) of the Act has made the addition of Rs.13,19,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and taxed the same u/s 115BBE of the Act.

3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the then Ld. Commissioner, however, as it appears from the para 3 of the impugned order that despite sending various notices the Assessee made no compliance and therefore in the absence of relevant information/documents and due to the non-compliance by the Assessee, the Ld. Commissioner ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine and without discussing anything on the merits of the case. The conduct of the Assessee seems to be non-compliant and therefore the Assessee does not deserve any leniency. However, considering the peculiar facts in totality that the Ld. Commissioner failed to decide the appeal on merits and therefore for the just decision of the case and for substantial justice, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, however, subject to deposit of Rs.1000/- as a token cost which is to be deposited in the Revenue Department within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Suffice to say the Ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate her claim. We clarify that in case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2024.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →