AJAY BAIDYANATH VERMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 19(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1463/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 October 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence filed by the assessee should be considered and examined by the CIT(A). The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed additions under section 69C and disallowed interest on borrowed capital. The assessee had sought to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A and confirming additions/disallowances without considering the evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 24(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Meena
For Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / : 13.10.2016 Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख / : 26 .10.2016 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per N. K. Pradhan, A. M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009- 10. It is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai and arises out of the order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: ‘1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence under rule 46A.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.26,27,988/- u/s. 69C of the Income tax Act, 1961.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.4,61,946/- as interest on borrowed capital u/s. 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’

(A.Y. 2009-10) Ajay Baidyanath Verma vs. ITO 3. After perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the assessee has filed a written submission dated 5.3.2013 before the ld. CIT(A) requesting to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules, 1962. It relates to the addition of Rs.26,27,988/- made by the AO u/s 69C of the Act. We find that in the written submission dated 13.9.2012, the assessee has enclosed copies of credit card statement and bank statement of his account and that of M/s. Advait Tech Service (I) P. Ltd., reflecting the payment made for credit card expenses. A copy of the certificate issued by the above company confirming the payment made by them against such credit card expenditure has also been enclosed. The assessee has, thus, requested the ld. CIT(A) to admit the above documents as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules, 1962 and further stated that from the above details, it would be amply clear that the expenditure incurred by the assessee has been incurred on behalf of the company.

4.

We also find that in the written submission dated 5.3.2013, the assessee has stated that the details called for by the AO were voluminous, therefore, he sought some more time, but the AO proceeded to complete the assessment by making additions of the entire credit card payments and disallowed interest in housing loans. He has, therefore, stated that he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control to submit the evidence before the AO and requested to admit the additional evidence under Rule 46A.

5.

Also the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance of loss of Rs.4,61,946/- under the head ‘income from house property’ by not admitting the additional evidence.

6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the additional evidence filed by the assessee has to be considered and examined by the ld CIT(A). We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the above issues afresh as per the provisions of the Act after allowing a (A.Y. 2009-10) Ajay Baidyanath Verma vs. ITO reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is made clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to lead any evidence in support of his case during the fresh proceedings.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. प�रणामतः �नधा�रती क� अपील सां�यक�य उ�दे�य के �लए �वीकृत क� जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on October 26 , 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (N. K. Pradhan) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 26.10.2016 व.�न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent 2. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�त / CIT - concerned 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →