ITO 33(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. PRASHANT KUTTY SHETTY, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4812/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 August 2017AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence and adjudicating on submissions not confronted to the AO. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the AO for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order granting relief to the assessee on unexplained deposits, AIR mismatches, and credit card expenses. The CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence without confronting the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence and passing an order without confronting the assessee's submissions to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Hearing: 29.8.2017Pronounced: 20.9.2017

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 19-06-2015 passed by Ld CIT(A)-45, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee relating to (a) Unexplained deposit of Rs.46,05,670/- (b) Mismatch between AIR information and books – Rs.12,05,661/- (c) Credit card expenses – Rs.17,23,052/- The revenue is also objecting to the action of Ld CIT(A) in admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A of the Act.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though adjournment was sought by the assssee on the last occasion. Hence we proceed to dispose of the appeal, ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.

2 Shri Prashant Kutty Shetty

3.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the assessee did not offer any explanations before the AO and hence the AO was constrained to make the above said additions. Before Ld CIT(A) the assessee filed a bank statement in the form of additional evidence on which the Ld CIT(A) called for a report. However, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has adjudicated the grounds by considering detailed submissions made by the assessee before him, which were not confronted to the AO. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the ld CIT(A) has violated the provisions of Rule 46A. Since the various explanations offered by the assessee require examination at the end of the AO, we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the AO for examining them afresh. The assessee is also directed to furnish all the information and explanations to the assessing officer for expeditious disposal of the matter.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 20.9.2017.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →