SANJAY H. PANJABI,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1200/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 April 2017AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that additions were made primarily due to non-furnishing of details. In the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of all issues.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns disallowances and rejections of claims made for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee contended that proper details and representation were not provided to the tax authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer should re-examine the disallowances and rejections of claims due to lack of proper evidence and representation before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Ramlal Negi (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav D. Rane
For Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad
Hearing: 13.4.2017Pronounced: 13.4.2017

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

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.9.2011 passed by the learned CIT(A)-30, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2006-07. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A) on the following issues :- a) Rejection of deduction claimed u/s. 54 of the Act. b) Disallowance of expenses claimed against interest income. c) Disallowance of claim made while computing house property income. d) Rejection of claim for exemption of long term capital gains. e) Assessment of short term capital gains as income from other sources.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessee could not properly submit the details before the tax authorities. He further submitted that the representatives of the assessee also did not properly represent the matter before the tax authorities. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has made additions only for want of evidences. He further

2 Sanjay H. Panjabi submitted that the assessee has furnished all the evidences in the paper book filed before the Tribunal. Accordingly, he submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining all the issues afresh.

3.

On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the additions have been made by the tax authorities since the assessee did not cooperate with them.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. We noticed that the Assessing Officer has made all the additions mainly on account of non-furnishing all the details called for by him. Now, learned AR submitted that the details have since been collated and accordingly prayed that all the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. It is also the contention of the assessee that the representatives who appeared before the tax authorities did not present the facts properly. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that all the issues require fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer by duly considering the information/explanation that may be furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on all the issues and restore them to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine them afresh by duly considering the information/explanations that may be furnished by the assessee. After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Assessing Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with the law.

5.

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

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 13.4.2017.

More judgments on Section 54

All 1,745 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →