MALLIKARJUN HAMANTARAYA AMMAPUR ,LINGASGURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , GULBARGA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not well-versed with the ITBA portal and requested another opportunity to present documents. The Tribunal decided to allow the appeal and remit the issue back to the NFAC to consider the case afresh with the provided documents.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal is against an order by the NFAC for AY 2018-19. The NFAC had confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,77,45,946/- due to unsubstantiated contractual payments. The assessee failed to respond to multiple notices issued by the NFAC.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO towards unsubstantiated contractual payments is justified, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present the case before the NFAC.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 23.2.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act:”).
Facts of the issue are that ld. NFAC issued a notice on the following dates for which there was no response from the assessee. Sr.No. Date of Date of Remarks Notice issued hearing 1. 26.10.2023 02.11.2023 No response 2. 09.11.2023 16.11.2023 No response 3. 09.12.2023 11.12.2023 No response 4. 12.12.2023 19.12.2023 Appellant has uploaded only copy of ITR & GOA 5. 07.02.2024 13.02.2024 No response
Sri Mallikarjun Hamantaraya Ammapur, Lingasguru Page 2 of 4 2.1 There was no proper response from assessee before NFAC. Hence, the ld. NFAC confirmed the addition made by ld. AO at Rs.3,77,45,946/- towards unsubstantiated contractual payments made by assessee in the assessment year under consideration. Against this assessee is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The ld. A.R. filed detailed documents before us as follows:
Sri Mallikarjun Hamantaraya Ammapur, Lingasguru Page 3 of 4 3.1 It was explained before us that assessee was not well versed in ITBA portal and pleaded to give one more opportunity to present his case before NFAC with all the documents to prove this impugned expenditure is available with the assessee as evidenced by the paper book filed before us. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that it is appropriate to remit the issue in dispute in its entirety to the file of NFAC to consider the case afresh in the light of documents produced before us. Accordingly, the assessee is once again directed to file all these documents filed before us before the Sri Mallikarjun Hamantaraya Ammapur, Lingasguru Page 4 of 4 NFAC and satisfy them regarding the genuineness of the expenditure claimed by the assessee and ld. AO has to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th June, 2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
