KETKI MUKESH PATEL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1364/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI S.S.GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of protective addition afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

Following search and seizure operations, the assessee filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment, making a protective addition of Rs. 2,90,000/- by disbelieving agricultural income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal without addressing the specific issue of protective addition. Whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Akash Gogari
For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Hearing: 08.05.2024Pronounced: 08.05.2024

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A), Pune-12, Pune dated 31.12.2021 for the assessment year 2014-15

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are as under :

The appellant is an individual deriving income from share of profit from a partnership firm. Search and seizure operations u/s.132 of the Act in the Deesan group of cases and the residential premises of the appellant were conducted on 17.01.2018. Notice u/s.153A was issued to the appellant on 24.01.2019. In response to notice u/s.153A, the appellant filed the Return of Income on 19.02.2019 disclosing total income of Rs.9,62,827/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2019 at a total income of Rs.12,52,830/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs.2,90,000/- on protective basis.

3.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the assessee’s claim.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in this present appeal with the delay of 651 days. It is submitted that the delay had occurred on account of serving the order passed u/s.250 on Mr. Kutty Chettariyil, an employee of the group, who subsequently died in an accident. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

5.

Having regard to the averments made in the condonation petition, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is prevented by a sufficient reasonable cause in not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, we condone the appeal in filing the appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

6.

At the outset, we find the CIT(A) had discussed the issue of additions on account of jewellery, bullion, silver articles which does not form the subject matter of appeal before him. In the present case, the issue in appeal is with regard to protective addition of Rs.2,90,000/- made by the AO disbelieving the agricultural income. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue in appeal afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant in accordance with law.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of May, 2024.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →