INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), KALYAN, KALYAN WEST vs. SUBHASH SADANAND SALKAR, DOMBIVLI EAST

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3194/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 August 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the appeal could not be decided on erroneous facts. Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the AO to verify the returned income and reframe the assessment after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue preferred an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted an addition made by the AO related to penny stock scrips. The AO initially assessed income at Rs. 5,19,230, which was also the returned income. However, the assessee pointed out the returned income was only Rs. 2,70,880.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal and deleting the addition made by the AO regarding penny stock scrips.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(A)(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, A/R
Hearing: 26/08/2024Pronounced: 28/08/2024

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM : This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order dated 22/03/2024 by ld. CIT(A)/Addl. CIT(A)-7, Kolkata [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)], pertaining to AY 2013-14. 2. The solitary grievance of the revenue is that, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made by the AO relating to penny stock scrips of M/s. Aricent Infra Ltd.

3.

The peculiar facts of the case are that the AO while completing the assessment assessed the income at Rs. 5,19,230/- and taking the returned income also at Rs.5,19,230/-. This means that according to the AO the assessed income is the returned income of the assessee. Yet the assessee challenged the assessment before the ld. CIT(A) and pointed 2

out that the returned income was only Rs.2,70,880/-. The ld. CIT(A) in his wisdom allowed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

We being the final fact-finding authority cannot decide this appeal on gross erroneous facts. Therefore, in the interests of justice, we restore the issues to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to first verify the returned income of the assessee, then frame the assessment after providing reasonable and adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

5.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 28th August, 2024 at Mumbai. (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 28/08/2024 *SC SrPs SC SrPs SC SrPs SC SrPs आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

1.

""थ" / The Respondent 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु" अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- िवभागीय "ितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /DR,ITAT, Mumbai, 5. 6. गाड" फाई/ Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 40(A)(2)(b)

All 41 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(A)(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →