AAKAR ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3044/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 April 2017AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's evidence was not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, appealed to the CIT(A) against the AO's order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading the assessee to file a further appeal before the ITAT. The assessee argued that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider crucial documentary evidence submitted.

What were the issues?

Whether the lower authorities properly considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, and if not, whether the case should be remanded for a fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 40a(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH,

Before: SHRI DT GARASIA, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Unadkot
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Hearing: 14/03/2017

O R D E R PER D. T. GARASIA, JM:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of CIT(A)-35 Mumbai, dated 23/01/2013 arising out of order of ITO 25(1)(3), Mumbai dated 29/12/2009 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2007-08.

2 Aakar Enterprises

2.

The following grounds are raised in this appeal are as under:-

1. Additions u/s 68 at Rs.66,45,000/-. 2. Additions of interest disallowances at Rs.1,79,400/- 3. Additions of interest u/s 40a(ia) at Rs.18,60,404/-. 4. Additions of interest paid to Dayaram at Rs.65,753/-. 5. Additions of Brokerage u/s 40a(ia) at Rs.22,993/-. 6. Additions of Compensation paid to tenant at Rs.81,50,000/-.

3. The short facts of the case are as under:- The assessee is a partnership firm. The assessee has filed the appeal before CIT(A) and CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the A.O. as well as CIT(A) has decided the appeal without considering the evidence which was filed before the AO and CIT(A) like ledger account, loan confirmation letter, bank statement, Income tax return acknowledgement and confirmation account in support of Dilip Swadi HUF. Similarly, in the case of Kanji Pitamber, Dayaram Dharmashi, the AO and CIT(A) has not considered all the confirmation copy of PAN card Income-tax Return and the matter was decided without considering all these evidences. The CIT(A) has also not considered all documentary evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice this matter may be restored to the AO.

5. On the other hand the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did remain present before CIT(A) and explain the case, thereafter, the assessee, the Ld. Counsel did not remain present. Therefore, the matter cannot be restored to the AO or CIT(A) and order may be confirmed.

3 Aakar Enterprises

6.

We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee has drawn our attention to the paper book wherein the assessee specifically drawn our attention on page No. 19, page No. 38 of paper book, in which it is specifically submitted all the documents were before the AO and though all the documents were submitted before the AO, the Assessing Officer has not considered this evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to decide all the issues on merit after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate the department and the AO is directed to decide the matter as per law. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Judgment pronounced in the open court on 7th April 2017. sd/- sd/- (MANOJKUMAR AGGARWAL) (D.T.GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 07/04/ 2017 *Rahul Sharma* Copy to: 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT(A) concerned 4) The CIT concerned 5) The D.R, “A” Bench, Mumbai 6) Guard file By Order

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →