SHRI AJAY A. SACHDEV,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT - 13(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1911/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial 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's matter was ex-parte before the Assessing Officer, and the CIT(A) had not addressed the core issues. Consequently, the Tribunal found it necessary to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was initially rejected by the ITAT due to non-appearance, but a miscellaneous application led to the restoration of the appeal after condoning a delay of 1341 days. The assessment order, passed under section 144, involved additions totaling Rs. 2,14,28,735/- on various grounds, including income from other sources, unexplained cash deposits, credit card expenditure, and interest income. The CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present their case before the AO, and if the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal without addressing the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

For Appellant: Ms Mona Solanki
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (CIT DR)
Hearing: 11/07/2024

The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of theLearned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order22.12.2016.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the LD. Dy. Commissioner of Income TaxCircle- Shri Ajay A Sachdev 13(2)(2),Mumbai (in short, ‘the A.O.’) passed under section144 of the Act, date of order26/03/2015.

2.

The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: - “a) " The Id. CIT (A) has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law erred in accepting the order of the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 1,72,43,5007-and treating the same as Income from Other Sources. The same is the sale consideration of two properties in the name of Shakti Good Health & Lifestyle Private Ltd, in which the assessee is a director. We request Your Honor to kindly delete the said addition. b)The Id. CIT (A) has on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, erred in accepting the Id. AO order in making an addition of Rs. 38,29,688/- u/s 69A in respect of cash deposits made in the assessee's bank accounts. The said addition may please be deleted. c)On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has erred in accepting the Id. AO order in making an addition of Rs. 2,27,0007- in respect of credit card expenditure. We request Your Honor to kindly delete the said addition. d)On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in accepting the Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 1,28,5477- being interest income but as per the submission dated 11.05.2016, the Ld. AR submitted that the appellant had properly shown interest income under the head 'Income from Other Sources' and had claimed the credit for TDS also. We request Your Honor to kindly delete the said addition. e)The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify or drop the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

Shri Ajay A Sachdev 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was rejected by the ITAT, “A” Bench, Mumbai due to nonappearance before the Bench. The miscellaneous application was filed by the assessee which was accepted by the Bench and restored the matter back for hearing with a direction to condone delay of 1341 days in filing of appeal. It was directed that the reasonfor the delay should be explained before the Bench. Accordingly, Ld.AR explained that due to negligence of the consultant, the assessee was not able to file the appeal in time. So, the appeal was filed with a delay of 1341 days. The Ld.DR has not made any strong objection to condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The reason for the delay is explained before the Bench with filing of affidavit by the assessee. Accordingly, the Bench condoned the delay and accepted appeal for hearing.

4.

In factual aspect, the addition was made during the assessment proceedings amount to Rs.1,72,43,500/- on account of income from other source, Rs.38,29,688/-, on account of cash deposit in bank remained unexplained, payment of credit card amount to Rs.2,27,000/- and on account of interest amount to Rs.1,28,547/- which works out to total amount of Rs.2,14,28,735/- was added back with the total income of the assessee. The assessment was completed under section 144 of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). But the Ld.CIT(A) has rejected the appeal and remanded the matter back only on single point. Being aggrieved on the appeal order, the assessee filed an appeal before us.

5.

The Ld.AR first prayed thatboth the appeal and the assessment proceedings were not represented properly by the authorized representative of the assessee. So, the Ld.AR prayed for further opportunity before the Ld.AO and ready to represent the matter before the ld. AO.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →