BHARAT KUMAR V. BALAR,BHIWANDI vs. ITO WD 1(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1736/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 March 2016AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and remanded the case back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex-parte by the CIT(A) without proper notice to the assessee's correct address. The assessee's counsel requested the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order and a remand for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in treating a gift as unexplained credit and disallowing telephone expenses without proper adjudication. Whether the CIT(A) followed principles of natural justice by issuing notice to the correct address.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala
For Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty, DR
Hearing: 10.03.2016Pronounced: 17.03.2016

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 2.3.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-1, Mumbai dated 30.11.2010 for the assessment year 2004-2005. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in treating the genuine gift of Rs. 5,01,000/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act without considering the facts of the case.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in adding a sum of Rs. 16,740/- and Rs. 83,702 as 20% of the telephone expenses as vehicle expenses as personal expenses without considering the facts that the same have been incurred for the purpose of business.”

2.

Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to Form No.35 filed before the CIT (A) and read out that the assessee gave the following address for communication. The said Form No.35 is scanned and placed as under:-

3.

Not following the same, the CIT (A) proceeded to issue the notice of hearing to the assessee’s address at Bhiwandi. As a result, the adjudication of appeal was done at the back of the assessee and the CIT (A) passed the order exparte on 30.11.2010. On these facts, Ld Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside the order of the CIT (A) and remand the issue to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication on the issues raised before us.

4.

After hearing Ld Representatives of both the parties, we find merit in the argument of the Ld Counsel for assessee and remand this issue to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to pass a speaking order on each of the issues raised by the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mentioned that the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being hearing to the assessee as per the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th March, 2016. (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक .3.2016

3 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 3. 4. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 5. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. सत्मावऩत प्रनत ////

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →