SHRI PUNIT KEVALCHAND SURANA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-20(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2324/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 July 2024AY 2013-14Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had provided multiple opportunities, but the assessee did not respond. However, there was no adjudication on the "Grounds of Appeal". Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide one more effective opportunity.

What were the facts?

The appellant's only ground for appeal was that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order without giving sufficient opportunity, confirming the reopening of assessment and an addition of Rs. 1.40 crores under section 69B for unexplained investment. The assessee failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite several opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee and whether the addition confirmed was justified without proper adjudication on the grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah
For Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Hearing: 09.07.2024Pronounced: 29.07.2024

The only ground taken by appellant in this case is that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A) for short] passed an order without giving sufficient opportunity and confirmed the reopening of the assessment of case alongwith addition of Rs. 1.40 crores u/s. 69B w.r.t. unexplained investment while purchasing a flat from M/s. Nish Developers (P) Ltd.

2.

On the day of hearing before this Tribunal, Learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR for short) of assessee could not properly explain the reasons for not appearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR per contra, supported the orders of the lower authorities and pleaded for confirming the addition made by Ld. AO.

3.

From the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that several opportunities were given to assessee, but the assessee did not respond to any of these notices and hence the appellate order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing his appeal by adjudicating that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal before him. It is observed from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that there is no adjudication on the “Grounds of Appeal” filed by assessee.

4. In view of the above, it is decided to remit the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to give one more effective opportunity and adjudicate the issue on merits. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) and file the relevant material on which he wants to rely upon. As there was no presence before the Ld. CIT(A) without any reasonable cause, cost of Rs. 5000/- is levied on assessee and he is directed to pay the same to Income Tax Department.

5.

The appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →