SHAILESH SHRIKANT MANIYAR-HUF,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JALGAON, JALGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1063/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 February 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is responsible for filing and proving all relevant facts in the consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee's explanation for the source of interest paid was rejected by the lower authorities. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing a detailed adjudication, failing to comply with statutory requirements.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal and provided a detailed order as required by law. Whether the assessee provided sufficient explanation for the source of interest income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 26.02.2024Pronounced: 27.02.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1063/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Shailesh Shrikant The Income Tax Officer, Manivar-HUF, H.No.1143, Ward – 1 (3), Income Tax Office, GAT No.248/1, Maniyar Old B J Market, Jalgaon. Estate, Indraprastha, vs. Maharashtra. Paldhi, Jalgaon – 425 001. PIN – 425 001 PAN AALHM7925D Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vinay Kawadia For Revenue : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of Hearing : 26.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055051969(1), dated 10.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties through their learned representatives that the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s explanation attributing source of interest paid of Rs.37,22,638/- to BHR Society as coming from the corresponding HUF. Mr.Gaurav Singh vehemently argued that the assessee had not filed any explanation

2 ITA.No.1063/PUN./2023 either before the Assessing Officer or in the lower appellate proceedings.

3.

It is next noticed from perusal of para-5.5, page-4 in the CIT(A)'s order that the since he has not received any information or documents, he had dismissed the appeal of the assessee, thereby not complying with sec.250(6) of the Act requiring him to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the Ld. CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

These assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →