MOHD HUSSAIN NOOR MOHD SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(3)(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found the assessee's reason for not producing documents before lower authorities to be reasonable. The application to admit additional evidence was allowed, and the case was remitted to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee's income was significantly increased by the AO due to additions under sections 68 and 69. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. The assessee sought to admit additional evidence before the ITAT due to the CA's failure to produce relevant documents earlier.
What were the issues?
Whether additional evidence, not produced before lower authorities due to CA's failure, should be admitted by the ITAT. Whether the case should be remitted to the AO for fresh assessment with the admitted evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT186 citing231 ITR 1 · 1998 · HC
- CIT v. Jaipur Udyog Ltd.5 citing227 ITR 345 · 1997 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
This appeal has been filed by the assessee against order dated 12/01/2016 passed by the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009- 10 whereby the Ld CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
The assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring the total income of Rs.1,48,380/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) determining the total income of Rs. 1,00,44,447/- after making additions including additions u/s 68 and 69 of the Act. In first appeal the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Still aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Since the assessee had moved an application under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules to allow the assessee to placed on record certain documents as additional evidence which could not be produced before the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. authorised representative of the assessee (AR) submitted that due to improper representation and failure to file the relevant papers before the authorities below by the concerned CA, the Ld. AO made additions under section 68 and 69 of the Act, which were further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR Further submitted that the concerned CA did not submit the documents compiled in Paper Book-III which are relevant to decide the issues involved in this case and if the said documents are not admitted as additional evidence, a grave injustice will be caused to the applicant/assessee. The Ld. AR relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Rajsthan High Court in CIT vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. 227 ITR 345(Raj), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Smt. Prabhavati V. Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom) submitted that since the assessee has been prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence, it would not be in the interest of justice to deny the admission of crucial evidence for the reason that it was not produced before the authorities below.
The Ld. DR opposed the application on the ground that since the assessee has failed to produce the documents before the authorities below, he is now estopped from filing the same at this stage.
We have heard the rival submission and gone through the record placed before us. In our opinion, the reason mentioned by the assessee for non- production of documents before the lower authorities appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the assessee should get an opportunity to produce the documents before the concern authorities in the interest of justice.
We, therefore, allow the application of the assessee and admit the additional evidence in the form of paper book No. III and remit the case to the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass the assessment order afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee on the basis of evident on record including the additional evidence produced by the assessee vide application dated 30/05/2016.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst. year. 2009-10 is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st October, 2016
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026