MILAN B. DALAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD II) CR 7, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing crucial documents before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after considering the additional evidence.
What were the facts?
Following a search under section 132, the Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 3,46,319/- on account of unaccounted cash receipt.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of unaccounted cash receipt was justified without considering additional evidence, and if penalty under Section 271AAA was leviable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”, BENCH MUMBAI
Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJITSINGH, JM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-2010.
In the assessee is aggrieved for addition of Rs.3,46,319/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), and in ITA No.3927/Mum/2013 appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) imposing penalty u/s.271AAA of the Act. ITA No.8052/Mum/2011 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a director of M/s Grishma Construction and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and also proprietor of M/s S.Ramdas. The assessee is engaged in the business of finance and financial consultancy. M/s 2 ITA No.8052/M/11 &ITA No.3927/Mum/2013 Grishma Construction and Trading Pvt. ltd. are engaged in the construction business. There was a search u/s.132 in the residential premises of assessee. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.12,29,230/-. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the details as per the questionnaire issued. After verification of all the relevant seized books of accounts, documents, loose papers, registers and other seized material, the AO made addition of Rs.36,00,000/- u/s.69C of the Act on account of low withdrawals and Rs.3,46,319/- on account of unaccounted cash receipt. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.36,00,000/- on account of low withdrawals and confirmed the addition of Rs.3,46,319/-, against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Ld. AR submitted that both the authorities below have not considered the page-wise explanation in respect of bills/credit notes of Uniglobe on Royal Developers as per page No.30 to 37 of the seized material. Ld. AR filed additional evidences contained in paper book at pages 1 to 13, which are confirmation of Uniglobe Comfort Travel, copy of account of Royal Developers in the Books of accounts of Unigloble Comfort Travel and part of the assessment records.
On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.
We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. We found that the AO made addition on account of no confirmation was filed by the assessee from the concerned party in regard to receipt of Rs.3,46,319/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the 3 &ITA No.3927/Mum/2013 above addition. From the additional documents filed by the ld. AR before us, we found that these documents are produced before the Tribunal for the first time. We had gone through the reasons which prevented the assessee to file these evidences before the lower authorities and found that there was reasonable cause for the same. However these documents go to the root of the issue, therefore in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file of AO to decide afresh after considering the evidences/documents so filed by the assessee and giving proper opportunity of being heard. We direct accordingly.
In the result appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.3927/Mum/2013 8. In respect of the imposition of the penalty u/s. 271 AAA of the Act, we found that addition with respect to which penalty has been levied, has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. In terms of additional evidence filed before the Tribunal, we also restore the appeal with regard to levy of penalty u/s. 271 AAA to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after deciding a quantum order as per directions contended herein above.
In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 03/02/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 03/02/2016 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS 4 ITA No.8052/M/11 &ITA No.3927/Mum/2013 आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ा पाईर / Guard file. 6. सत्मावऩत प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER,
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026