What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the case required re-examination by the Assessing Officer. The issue was sent back to the AO to re-examine all facts and evidence and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The assessee's appeal was against an ex parte assessment order where additions were made for cash deposited in the bank. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, refusing to accept additional evidence filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding additions made on account of cash deposits without considering additional evidence, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to explain the sources of the deposits.

Jagdish C. Manek vs ITO | s.144 | ITAT Mumbai 2016

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

Before: Shri C.N. Prasad, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Heliwal, (DR)

Hearing: 16/03/2016

07/03/2016 सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 16/03/2016 आदेश क� तार�ख /Date of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (Accountant Member): This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai- 23 {(in short ‘CIT(A)’}, order dated 31.12.2012 passed against assessment order u/s. 144 of the Act, for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2 Jagdish C. Manek

During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the Assessee and Shri Ashish Heliwal, Departmental Representative (DR) argued on behalf of the Revenue.

It is noted that none had appeared on behalf of the assessee on earlier occasions also, whereas notices have been duly dispatched and served upon the address given in the appeal memo. Thus, we have no option but to proceed ex parte qua the assessee. It is noted that the effective issue raised in this appeal is with regard to the action of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding addition made by the AO on account of cash deposited in the bank account by the assessee. It is noted from the perusal of the assessment order that the addition was made on the basis of information gathered by the AO on the basis of information generated from the system. The assessment order was completed ex parte u/s 144, in absence of any representation from the side of the assessee.

3.1. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein assessee filed some additional evidences to explain the sources of cash deposited in the bank account. But Ld. CIT(A) was not refused to accept the additional evidences under Rule 46A and therefore, confirmed the addition made by the AO.

3.2. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities. In our opinion the case of the assessee require reexamination by the AO, therefore, we find it appropriate to send the issue

3 Jagdish C. Manek raises in the appeal before us back to the file of the AO, who shall reexamine all the facts and evidences before deciding this issue afresh and shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to file requisite details and evidences to explain sources of cash deposited. The assessee shall extend requisite cooperation to the AO and shall file details and documents as may be considered appropriate by him as per law. Thus, the issue raised in this appeal is sent back to the file of the AO.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th March, 2016.

JAGDISH C. MANEK,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 12(2)(2), 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