What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the additional evidence was not admitted and considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after considering the additional evidence.

The assessee's appeal was against the addition of Rs. 15,24,575/- made by the AO on account of deposits in a savings bank account. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal without considering additional documentary evidence filed before him.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the appeal without considering material additional evidence filed by the assessee.

Amit Subhash Parikh vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE S/SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JM), & RAJESH KUMAR,(AM)

For Respondent: Shri H M Wanare

Hearing: 19.7.2016

सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date of Hearing : 19.7.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25. 7.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

Per RAJESH KUMAR, Accountant Member:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)--18,Mumbai dated 14.8.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11.

The issue raised in ground No.1 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.15,24,575/- as made by the AO on account of amount deposited in saving bank account of the assessee by disregarding the documentary evidence filed before the ld. CIT(A) and the issue raised in the 2nd ground of appeal

is with regard to non admission of additional evidence filed before the First Appellate Authority.

3. At the outset, the ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal of the assessee without considering the additional evidences filed before the said authority which were material and were necessary to explain the various deposits made into saving bank account of the assessee. The ld. AR brought to our notice the observations of ld.CIT(A) as made in the para 2.4 of the appellate order stating that photocopies of the papers could not be called documentary evidence in the eyes of law unless and until it is signed by the concerned person and prayed that the ld.CIT(A) be directed to admit the evidences and decide the issue in the light of the same afresh.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below. We find merit in the contentions of the ld.AR that the additional evidence placed before the ld. CIT(A) were not admitted and considered and the matter was adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) without such evidences as were material to core issue involved. We therefore, consider it fit and proper and in the interest of justice to restore the issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh after considering the additional evidence as may be placed by the assessee in support of his claim. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed .

AMIT SUBHASH PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments