MAHESH SHAMJI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. MRS SAKSHI KALRA ACIT CIR 26(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3711/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2024AY 2012-2013Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Girish Agrawal ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not frame specific points for adjudication with detailed discussion as required under section 250(6) of the Act, nor did they examine the issue in light of the material on record. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 arose from an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which affirmed an addition of Rs. 940,61,569/- for unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The assessee did not appear before the tribunal. The Learned DR argued that the addition was rightly affirmed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC properly adjudicated the issue of unexplained investment addition without following the due procedure under section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (JM) & Shri Girish Agrawal (AM)

For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Hearing: 01.07.2024Pronounced: 10.07.2024

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’), Delhi’s Din and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055138090(1) dated 16.08.2023 in proceedings under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act; in short “the Act”. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceeds ex-parte against him .

2.

Learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the CIT(A)/NFAC herein has rightly affirmed the assessment findings making section 69 unexplained investment addition of Rs. 940,61,569/- in the ex- parte lower appellate discussion. She could hardly dispute the clinching fact that neither the learned CIT(A) has framed any point(s) of adjudication followed by detailed discussion under section 250(6) of the Act nor has he examined his above sole issue in light of the corresponding material on record.

4.

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for its fresh appropriate adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to the rider that it shall be the appellant’s risk and responsibility only to plead and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →