KALPANA VIJAY DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3817/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 January 2016AY 2002-032 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) made a decision based on an incorrect appreciation of facts regarding the return filing date. Consequently, all issues required re-adjudication by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2002-03, which dealt with the validity of reopening, addition of expenses, and additions under sections 68 and 69. The CIT(A) held the reopening valid based on an incorrect appreciation of the return filing date.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment due to an incorrect factual finding by the CIT(A) regarding the assessee's return filing date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(4),Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 6.1.2016Pronounced: 6.1.2016

Per B R Baskaran, AM:

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 07-3- 2012 passed by Ld CIT(A)-26, Mumbai for assessment year 2002-03, wherein the first appellate authority has decided the following issues against the assessee:- (a) Validity of reopening of assessment (b) Addition of Rs.34,498/- relating to expenses (c) Addition of Rs.11,49,293/- made u/s 68 of the Act (d) Addition of Rs.7,45,603/- made u/s 69 of the Act.

2.

The Ld A.R advanced her arguments on the validity of re-opening of assessment. The assessing officer has noted that the assessee has filed

2 her return of income for the year under consideration on 29-03-2004, i.e., within the period prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act. However the Ld CIT(A) has observed that the return of income was filed on 31.7.2004, i.e., beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act and accordingly held that the return of income was not a valid return. Accordingly he held that the said invalid return does not have any implication on the reopening of assessment and hence the reopening was valid.

3.

Thus, we notice that the Ld CIT(A) has rendered his decision in incorrect appreciation of facts, which vitiates his order. Accordingly, we are of the view that all the issues urged before us require re-adjudication at his end. Accordingly, we set aside his order and restore all the issues to his file for fresh examination.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced accordingly on 6th Jan 2016. घोषणध खुरे न्मधमधरम भें ददनधंकः 6th Jan 2016 को की गई । (AMARJIT SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai: 6th Jan 2016. व.नन.स./ SRL , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीरधथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- concerned 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT concerned 4. ववबधगीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई /

5.

DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned गधर्ा पधईर / Guard file. 6. आदेशधनुसधय/ BY ORDER,सहधमक ऩंजीकधय (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 139(4)

All 902 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →