SUJATA RAJENDRA NIKALJE,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(2)(2), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 280/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 December 2016AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed late, but the tribunal condoned the delay. The core issue was the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained cash credit in the accounts of the assessee's minor daughters.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 5,00,000 as unexplained cash credit in the accounts of minor daughters was justified, and if the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing donors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bist, DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND ASHWANI TANEJA, AM (A.Y:2005-06) Mrs. Sujata Rajendra Nikalje Income Tax Officer L3/17 Vrindavan, Tilak Nagar, Ward No. 22(2)(2) Vs. Chembur, Mumbai-400071. Navi Mumbai. PAN No. AAXPN2366D Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. Shri.Prakesh Pandit, AR Revenue by .. Shri. B.S. Bist, DR Date of hearing .. 05-12-2016 Date of pronouncement .. 05-12-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM:

This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of CIT (A)-25, Mumbai in appeal No. (old) CIT(A)-33/IT/296/12-13 (New) CIT(A)25/IT/296/12-13 dated 27-03-2015. The Assessment was framed by ITO Ward-22(2)-2, Mumbai for the A.Y. 2005-06 vide order dated 25-03-2013 u/s 143(3) r. w. s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, it is noticed that this appeal was time-barred and assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit. The assessee explained that actually the CIT(A) order dated 27-07-2015 was received by assessee’s CA Mr. BN Dudhani only on 16-12-2015 and consequently appeal was filed on 18-01-2016. According to him there is no delay but as per CIT (A)’s records copies of order were sent to assessee on 01-05-2015 but assessee claimed that he has not received any such order, but assessee’s CA Mr. NB Dudhani received the order only on 16-12-2015. When this was put to the learned Sr. DR he could not answer. Going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the appeal is within time and it is apparent from records. Hence, we admit the appeal.

3.

The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO of unexplained cash credit in the account of minor daughters amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- added u/s 68 of the Act. For this assessee has raised following two grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made by AO of Rs.5,00,000/- by applying the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax 1961 being unexplained cash credit in the account of minor daughters of the appellant.

2. The reasons given by the CIT(A) for making addition of Rs.5,00,000/- by applying the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 being unexplained cash credit in the account of minor daughters of the appellant are wrong, insufficient and contrary to the evidence on record.”

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee made simple plea that the relevant A.Y. is 2005-06 and assessee was detained by police authorities from 16-12-2015 to 13-09-2007 and further, assessee was released on conditional bail prohibiting to contact any person including the donors of the gifts till the proceedings in MOCCA Court were over. In these circumstances, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not producing the said donors though she has discharged the onus by filing gift deeds. It was claimed by assessee that her daughters received gift by cheque from various parties which are as under: -

“i. Gift received by Ms. Ankita Nikalje from Shri Dhirajlal M. Karelia of Rs.1,50,000/- ii. Gift received by Ms. Nikita Nikalje from Shri Kantaben D. Karelia of Rs.1,50,000/-. iii. Gift received by Ms. Khushi Nikalje from Shri Harakchand K. Chheda of Rs.1,50,000/- iv. Gift received by Ms. Khushi Nikalje from Shri Rajesh V. Thakkar of Rs. 50,000/- 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee only made a plea that this matter has to go back to the file of the AO as the assessee was prevented by the authorities not to contact the donners for the time being. When query was put to learned Counsel, he stated that the matter was before Hon’ble Supreme Court in regard to MOCCA proceedings. On query from the bench the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that he has no objection for remanding the matter back to the file of the AO.

6.

After hearing both the sides and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the orders of lower authorities and remitting the matter back to the file of the AO for redoing the assessment on these issues only. Needless to say that the AO will decide the issue after allowing reasonable opportunities to assessee of being heard and taking recourse within the provision of the Act.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 05-12-2016.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →