JITESH JITENDRA SAKHIDAS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30 (1) (5), MUMBAI

ITA 3112/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 February 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition was not tenable as it was made solely on the director's statement without corroborative material. The assessee had provided sale agreements and bank statements substantiating payments.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 67,00,000 as unexplained investment based on a loose paper found during a survey and the statement of a builder's director. The assessee had purchased a flat for Rs. 65,00,000. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition under Section 69B for unexplained investment can be made solely based on a director's statement without corroborative evidence. Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 143(1),Section 133A,Section 131,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM &

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, CA, Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.02.2024

Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 17.08.2023 for the AY 2012-

13.

The assessee raised the following grounds:

1.

The Addition of Rs.67,00,000/- toward unexplained Investment u/s.69B of the Act on a ground that inspite of numerous opportunities given, the appellant had neither complied to nor attended in response to any of these notices Per statement -I.

2.

Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.67,00,000/- made by the Assess

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →