DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. BALAKUMAR VETHAGIRI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4163/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 February 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission to set aside the matter to the AO. This was to allow the AO to examine impounded survey materials, confront them to the assessee, and provide an opportunity for a hearing, promoting natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee and the Revenue filed cross-appeals against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2009-10. The assessee did not press some grounds, while the Revenue contested reliefs granted by the CIT(A) on additions made under various sections. The AO had completed the assessment based on available material due to lack of full cooperation from the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly examined materials impounded during survey operations and whether the assessee was provided adequate opportunity to be heard regarding additions made under various sections of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 80C,Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri N P Singh
Hearing: 2.2.2016

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.3055/Mum/ 2013
I.T.A. No.4163/Mum/ 2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R Per B R Baskaran, AM: These cross-appeals are directed against the order dated 25.3.2013 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-33, Mumbai and they relate to the assessment years 2009-10. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR did not press Grounds No.1 and 2 and also the addition of Rs.15,97,713/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), which is stated in Ground No.3. Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as not pressed. The remaining grounds give rise to the following issues: a) Disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,26,833/-; b) Addition made under section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.15.89 crores; c) Addition made u/s 69A of Rs. 1.87 crores; d) Addition made u/s 69C of the Act of Rs.2,45,000/-; e) Addition relating to the undisclosed income Rs.42.74 lakhs and ; f) Rejection of claim for deduction 80C of the Act.

3.

The Revenue is in appeal on the following issues : a) Relief granted against the addition made u/s 68 of the Act viz.,Rs.27,40,000/, Rs.81,14,316 and Rs.25,00,000/-. b) Relief granted against the addition made u/s 69C of the Act viz.,Rs.12,20,850/-, Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.2,21,500/-; c) The relief granted in respect of undisclosed receipts amounting to Rs.30,00,000/-.

4.

At the time of hearing, the ld.DR submitted that the AO completed the assessment on the basis of material available on record, since the assessee did not fully co-operate with the AO in furnishing the relevant details called for by him. Even though, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed major part of the additions made by the AO, yet the ld.CIT(A) also did not fully examined the materials impounded from the assessee during the course of survey operations conducted under section 133A of the Act. The ld. DR accordingly submitted that, in the fitness of matter and in the interest of 3 3 05 5 / M/ 2 01 3 an d 4 1 6 3/ M/ 2 0 1 3 natural justice, all the issues that are being contested by both the parties may be set aside to the file of the AO in order to enable him to take a judicious view of the matters by considering the materials impounded during the course of survey operation and providing necessary opportunity to the assessee.

5.

The ld. AR also agreed to the proposal put forth by the ld.DR.

6.

Having regard to the rival submissions, we find merit in the submissions made by the ld. DR. The cause of justice shall be promoted if the materials impounded during the course of survey were properly confronted to the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matters that are being contested by both the parties before us to the file of the AO with a direction to examine them afresh by duly considering the materials impounded during the course of survey operation and also by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to extend full co- operation to the AO by furnishing all the details that may be called for by the AO for expeditious completion of the assessment.

7.

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced accordingly on 2nd FEB , 2016. घोषणध खुरे न्मधमधरम भें ददनधंकः 2nd FEB, 2016 को की गई । Sd sd (PAWAN SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai: 2nd Feb, 2016. व.नन.स./ SRL , Sr. PS

4 3 05 5 / M/ 2 01 3 an d 4 1 6 3/ M/ 2 0 1 3

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →