ITO, WARD-3(3)(8), , AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MANSUKHBHAI DAHYABHAI RADADIYA, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1447/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 October 2024AY 2015-16Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and, finding it necessary for proper adjudication, remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the new evidence and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made under Section 41(1) and for unproven advances. The assessee submitted additional evidence before the Tribunal which was not presented to the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to outstanding liabilities and unproven advances. The admissibility and consideration of additional evidence not presented to lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL

For Respondent: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 17.10.2024

(Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Mansukhbhai Dahyabhai Ward-3(3)(8), Radadiya, Ahmedebad A/06, Jivan Twin Society, Nikol Gram Road, Nikol, Ahmedabad-382415 [PAN No.AAEFM5214A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri Waghe Prasad Rao, Sr. DR 17.10.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2024 O R D E R

PER DR. BRR KUMAR - ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad, vide order dated 21.03.2018 passed for A.Y. 2015-16.

The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2.

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition u/s. 41(1) of the Act of Rs.99,97,795/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the outstanding liabilities as genuine.

2.

The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,11,38,760/- out of total addition of Rs.41,15,38,760/- without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not proved the advance from members as genuine.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of above issues.

ITO vs. Shri Mansikhbhai Dahyabhai Radadiya Asst.Year –2015-16 - 2– 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3. The assessee has filed additional evidences before the Tribunal, these evidences were either to not file before the Revenue Authorities.

4.

After going through the additional evidences we consider that they are required for adjudication of the issue involved in the appeal. Hence, the same are being admitted.

5.

The Ld. D.R. argued that since the Revenue has not got the opportunity to examine the additional evidences in the fitness of things the matter be referred to the Assessing Officer. Hence, keeping in view the fact on record the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer to consider the additional evidences and to pass an order de-novo after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open Court on 17.10.2024

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →