CHETAN S CHANDRANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 752/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 November 2015AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it fair to examine the assessee's claims. Therefore, the appeal was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination and decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 20,87,867 under Section 69 and remanding back a claim of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 80C. The assessee also raised additional claims for loss of future and options.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition under Section 69 and remanding the claim under Section 80C. The assessee also sought to raise additional claims for losses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Devendra H Jain, Shri Arvind Kumar-DR
Hearing: 16/11/2015

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30/11/2012 of the Ld. first Appellate Authority, Mumbai, on the ground that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of

1.

2 Mr. Chetan S Chandrani Rs.20,87,867/- made u/s 69 of the Act in a case written is filed u/s 44AE of the Act and further not justified in remanding back to the Assessing Officer for verification of claim of Rs.1 lakh u/s 80C of the Act, payment of advance tax of Rs.15,000, being part of admitted tax and not entertaining the additional claim of loss of future and options amounting to Rs.1,52,758/-, being part of alternate/legal claim raised before him/her.

2.

During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Devendra Jain, advanced arguments, which are identical to the ground raised. The assessee also furnished copy of the order dated 28/02/2014 in the case of wife of the assessee, wherein, it was claimed that relief was granted in the case of the wife. The ld. DR, Shri Arvind Kumar, strongly opposed the claim of the assessee, by submitting that at best, the additional evidence, filed before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), should have been remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer.

2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We are of the view, that mandate of the constitution is to levy and collect due taxes, therefore, in all fairness, we remand this appeal to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee and after providing due opportunity of being heard, decide afresh in accordance with law, thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

3 Mr. Chetan S Chandrani Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 16/11/2015.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →