Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja
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
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.
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.