LATE SHRI AJIT S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3269/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 June 2016AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, directed the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged additions made by the AO regarding cash deposits and credit card expenses, and the non-adjustment of business loss. The First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided sufficient opportunity by the First Appellate Authority and if the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani, Smt. N.V. Nadkarni-DR
Hearing: 16/06/2016

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18/02/2015 for the Assessment year 2007-08, of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.

2.

In the present appeal, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.12,93,050/-, cash deposit in the bank and Rs.1,64,138/- being cash credit card expenses and non- adjustment of business loss of Rs.5,56,686/- against the total taxable income of Rs.14,57,188/- and deduction of Rs.1 lakh u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).

1.

2.1. However, during hearing of this appeal, ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to para-3 of the impugned order by contending that practically an ex-parte order has been passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. It was pleaded that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee so that the factual matrix can be explained and no loss is caused to the assessee. The ld. DR, contended that sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee.

2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion (para-3) from the conclusion drawn in the impugned order for ready reference:-

3 Late Ajit S. Mehta through L/H Smt. Smita Ajit Mehta “2. Grounds of appeal:

"1. The order passed by Ld. A.O. is against equity and justice and bad-in-law,

2. The Id. A.O. erred in including the cash deposit of Rs.12,93,O5O/- as income of the assessee.

3. The Ld. A.O. has erred in adding amount of Rs.1,64,138/- being credit card expenses and treating the same as income.

4.

The Id. A.O. erred in not reducing c/f. loss of Rs.5,56,686/- determined as per the original assessment.

5.

The Id. A.O. erred in not giving deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- u/s.80C as claimed in the return of income."

3.

The return of income has been filed on 1st October, 2007 at a total income at Rs. NiI and subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 22-09-2008. Assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 11th December, 2009. Subsequently notice u/s.148 was issued on 27th March 2012. The reasons for reopening were a deposit of cash of Rs.12,93,O5O/- in the bank account and credit card expenses of Rs.1,64,138/-. During the course of assessment the assessee was not able to provide credible explanation for both the issues and therefore the addition has been made. The assessee is in appeal against both the additions. But subsequent to the filing of appeal despite fixing the case on number of occasions no one has attended and no documents have been filed to substantiate the grounds of appeal

. In light of this circumstances, the appeal filed by the assessee with this office on 30th March 2013 is hereby dismissed.

5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

2.3. Considering the totality of facts and the circumstance narrated before us along with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), we direct the assessee to remain vigilant in future and to appear on the appointed date. Keeping in view, the principle of natural justice and mandate of Article 265 of Constitution of 4 Late Ajit S. Mehta through L/H Smt. Smita Ajit Mehta India, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is directed to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and to examine the claim of the assessee on merit and decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to mention here that the assessee is at liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of his/her claim. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of Ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 16/06/2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ashwani Taneja) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 16/06/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

More judgments on Section 80C

All 658 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →