Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.2.2014 passed by the learned CIT(A)-I, Thane and it relates to A.Y. 2009-10.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by registered post on more than one occasion. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte, without presence of the assessee.
We noticed that the assessee is contesting the addition of ` 13.15 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act.
The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of ` 5,49,650/-. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in mechanical instruments and servicing of instruments under two proprietary concerns namely M/s. Tech Overseas and M/s. Hitech Services. The Assessing Officer further noticed that the assessee has introduced a sum of ` 10.15 lakhs in M/s. Techno Overseas and ` 2.40 lakhs in M/s. Hitech Services as her capital contribution. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the sources there of aggregating to ` 13.15 lakhs. The assessee explained the same to be her past savings, but the Assessing Officer did not accept the same. Accordingly, he assessed the capital contribution of ` 13.15 lakhs as income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act.
The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed the appeal before us.
6. We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee has explained that she and her husband were in service for the past fifteen years and they were also filing return of income regularly. Accordingly the assessee has submitted that the past savings were used to make capital contribution. We noticed that the tax authorities have not taken cognizance of the claim of filing of income tax returns, which would have helped to appreciate the explanations furnished by the assessee. Further, the assessee has submitted one more explanation before the learned CIT(A) i.e. she has claimed to have received gifts from her parents who were agriculturists having rubber estates in Kerala. This explanation of the assessee has also not been considered by the learned CIT(A). Under these set of facts, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the same afresh by duly considering the explanations of the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 10.1.2017.