DHAVAL G. KAPADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7161/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 June 2017AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to admit additional evidence that was not considered by the lower authorities. The issue was remitted to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration, including the additional evidence and providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns cash deposits in a bank account for the assessment year 2010-2011. The assessee claimed that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity to be heard and present additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities erred by not providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and considering additional evidence.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Paras B.Jain
Hearing: 22.05.2017

O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 06.10.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2010-2011.

2.

At the outset, the issue raised is that learned CIT(A) has erred in passing order without giving assessee proper opportunity. In this case it is noted that the issue pertains to cash deposits in assessee’s bank account. The plea of the assessee that A.O. has not provided proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the learned CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. It is also the plea of the learned Counsel of the assessee that several additional evidences need to be filed in this case and he made an affidavit also in this regard.

1.

. Shri Dhaval G Kapadia. 3. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that in the interest of justice it would be appropriate if the additional evidence is admitted as these additional evidences were not before the authorities below. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall consider the issue afresh by considering the additional evidences and giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.

4.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →