MUKESH BABULAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 17(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1603/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 June 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted crucial evidence before the CIT(A) which was not considered. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming disallowances and additions. The assessee had submitted PAN of transporters and confirmations of loans before the CIT(A), which were allegedly overlooked.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowances and additions were justified when the assessee provided supporting evidence to the CIT(A) that was not considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Ishwer Prakash Rathi, Shri Purushottam Kumar
For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Hearing: 23.05.2017Pronounced: 05.06.2017

O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of learned CIT(A) dated 01.12.2016 and pertains to assessment year 2012-2013.

2.

Grounds of appeal

1.

read as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance u/s 40 (a) (ia) of Rs. 3,26,205/- being payment made to two transporter operators without deduction of IDS u/s 194C, whereas both the transporter operators are holding PAN and hence TDS is not deductible.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 22,813/- out of interest expenses by calculating notional interest on two interest free advances.

. Shri Mukesh Babulal Shah. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming addition u/s 68 for Rs. 23,00,000/- being loans and advances received from 8 parties. Your appellant craves to consider each of the above grounds of appeal without prejudice to each other and craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or to furnish fresh and / or detailed grounds of appeal.”

3. In this case I note that assessee has duly submitted Permanent Account Number of two transport operators before the learned CIT(A). The assessee has also submitted confirmation of loans from 8 (eight) parties before the learned CIT(A). It was in the absence of above evidences which has led to the addition in this case. The assessee had not submitted the details before the Assessing Officer. However, the details were submitted before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has erroneously observed that no such details has been submitted before him by the assessee. However, the statement of facts submitted before the learned CIT(A) support the contention of the assessee that the said details were submitted and the learned CIT(A) failed to note the same. In these circumstances, both the Counsel fairly agreed that the issue raised in this appeal needs to be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, I remit the issue raised to the file of the A.O. The Assessing Officer shall consider the issue afresh after considering the new evidences submitted by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). Needless to add, the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

5.

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

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →