ARPAN LEASING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1553/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 September 2017AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) was crucial and, considering the ex-parte order and the interest of justice, restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to consider the additional evidence and decide the issue afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in lease financing, had become dormant since 2007 with no revenue-generating activities. The assessment was reopened based on AIR information, and an ex-parte order was passed under Section 144, making additions on account of cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's application under Rule 46A for not producing evidence during assessment proceedings, and if the additional evidence should be considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mitra
Hearing: 06/09/2017Pronounced: 20/09/2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dated 23/01/2017 for Assessment year 2010-11 in the matter of ex-parte order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act.

2.

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused.

3.

Facts in brief are that assessee is engaged in the business of lease financing and hire purchase. It was submitted by learned AR that assessee did not carry out any revenue generating activities since 01/04/2007 and therefore, in the year under consideration, there was no taxable income. On the basis of AIR information, assessment was reopened. However, AO passed order u/s.144 wherein addition was made on account of amount deposited in the cash with UCO Bank, Mumbai during the year. 4. Before the CIT(A), assessee filed additional evidence to substantiate depositing of money in bank account wherein assessee has filed following documents:- a. Confirmation letter alongwith copy of PAN card of Dinesh Devji Shah (Prop. Of Dinesh Decorators Caterers) b. Confirmation letter of K P Engineering Co., c. Confirmation letter of S. Ashwinikumar & Co. from the books of assessee company and the said party

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →