CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…ally explained would practically dispense with the necessity of the assessee giving any explanation of fact under section 68 where intangible additions were made in the earlier years and hence such a view is untenable. In the case of CIT vs. Manik Sons (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that only if the unexplained cash credit can reasonably be related to the amount covered by the intangible addition made in the past, or in the very year, necessary set off can be allowed. The principle that it is the assessee who should give a satisfactory explanation regarding cash credits is in no way rendered inapplicable merely…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

…ally explained would practically dispense with the necessity of the assessee giving any explanation of fact under section 68 where intangible additions were made in the earlier years and hence such a view is untenable. In the case of CIT vs. Manik Sons (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that only if the unexplained cash credit can reasonably be related to the amount covered by the intangible addition made in the past, or in the very year, necessary set off can be allowed. The principle that it is the assessee who should give a satisfactory explanation regarding cash credits is in no way rendered inapplicable merely…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

…ally explained would practically dispense with the necessity of the assessee giving any explanation of fact under section 68 where intangible additions were made in the earlier years and hence such a view is untenable. In the case of CIT vs. Manik Sons (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that only if the unexplained cash credit can reasonably be related to the amount covered by the intangible addition made in the past, or in the very year, necessary set off can be allowed. The principle that it is the assessee who should give a satisfactory explanation regarding cash credits is in no way rendered inapplicable merely…

APURVA AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. 8(2) (ERSTWHILE ACIT, CENT. CIR. - 45), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1401, 14th floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, the Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) PAN No. AAEPA 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 13th floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road,…

KISHORE AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1401, 14th floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, the Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) PAN No. AAEPA 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 13th floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road,…

ASHISH AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1401, 14th floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, the Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) PAN No. AAEPA 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 13th floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road,…

PUSHPA AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1401, 14th floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, the Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) PAN No. AAEPA 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 13th floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road,…

SHWETA AVARSEKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1401, 14th floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, the Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) PAN No. AAEPA 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 13th floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road,…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

…ally explained would practically dispense with the necessity of the assessee giving any explanation of fact under section 68 where intangible additions were made in the earlier years and hence such a view is untenable. In the case of CIT vs. Manik Sons (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) it was held that only if the unexplained cash credit can reasonably be related to the amount covered by the intangible addition made in the past, or in the very year, necessary set off can be allowed. The principle that it is the assessee who should give a satisfactory explanation regarding cash credits is in no way rendered inapplicable merely…

M/S BHAGIRATH STATIONERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

…an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. For this proposition, I place reliance upon following case laws. i. CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra(HUF)(2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 ii. CIT vs. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 4. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I remit the issue raised in the appeal the file of the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 5. In the result, these appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical pur…

M/S. KHAKHU ENTERPRISESS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-17(2)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

…an order on the merits of the case and not dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. For this proposition, I place reliance upon following case laws. i. CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra(HUF)(2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 ii. CIT vs. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 2 4. In the present case apart from dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, the ld.CIT(A) has reproduced the AOs observation and again drew adverse inference for nobody appeared in appeal. The order of ld.CIT(A) is at best a cryptic non speaking and non-reasoned order liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I re…

CACHET ENGINEERING P.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1917/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Cachet Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito-12(1)-4 Ground Floor, Anandibai 145A, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Vs. Gosavi Chawl, Kurar K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Village, Malad (E)-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc9354L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R.A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. That The Learned Cit (A), Mumbai Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Reassessment Proceedings & Also Framing The Assessment Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Act Determining The Income Of The Appellant At An Income Of Rs.5,05,00,000/- As Against Returned Loss Of Rs. 30,080/-.

…rits of the case and not to dismiss the appeal for want of non- prosecution. 4. For this proposition we place reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is not…

MR. MAYANK JAYANTILAL DESAI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 648/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mayank Jayantilal Desai बिधम/ Cit(A), Nfac 20/20, Praveen Terrace, Dr. Delhi-110503. Vs. D.D Sathe Marg, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapd9253A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.02.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “ 1. Natural Justice 1.1 It Is Submitted That, In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellate Order So Framed Be Held As Bad & Illegal, As:

…n the merits of the case and not to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. For this proposition we place reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 6. Accordingly in the interest of justice we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the said ITA. No.648/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2010-11 circumstances, we…

SUNITA RAKESH JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO -29(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.542/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sunita Rakesh Jain बिधम/ Ito-29(3)(4) 308, 3Rd Floor, C-10, 1701, Brighton Towers, Hari Vs. Om Nagar, Near Eastern Pratyakshakar Bhawan, Express Highway Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- East, Mumbai-400081. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agqpj7159M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv Brahme Revenue By: Shri Bhomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 13.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Cit(A) Failed To Service A Proper Notice To The Appellant & Passed The Ex-Parte Order. A.Y.2015-16 2. The Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Ao Did Not Carry Out Any Independent Enquiry Himself For The Reconciliation Of Sales Amount Therefore, The Addition Sustained By Cit(A) Is Unjustified & Is Liable To Be Deleted.

…e assessee before deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law. 5. For this proposition we placed reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 6. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, in the said circumstanc…

VINAY BALESHWAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 15(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Learned Cit(A) Did Not Adjudicate The Merits Of The Issue Raised. But He Dismissed The Appeal For Non-Prosecution.

…pass an order on the merits of the case and not dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. For this proposition I place reliance upon following case laws:- 1. CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTK (Bom) 302 2. CIT vs S Chenniappa Mudaliar(1969)74 ITR 1(SC) 2 Vinay Baleshwar Sharma Accordingly in the interest of justice I remit the issue raised in the appeal the file of the learned CIT-A. Learned CIT-A is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. 4. In the result this appeal by the assessee stand…

KRYSTAL COLLOIDS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

…sessee before the deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law. 4. For this proposition we placed reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, in the said circumstanc…

M/S JAI RAMA PLASTICS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

…ssee before the deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law. 4. For this proposition we placed reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 2 A.Y.2011-12 5. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, in the s…

JAY HANSRAJ CHHEDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 19(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6444/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बिधम/ Jay Hansraj Chheda Ito, Ward-19(2)(1) Room No.61, 4Th Floor, Matru Mandir, Room Vs. Vasant Villa, Behnama Hall No.221, Tardeo Road, Lane Prarthna Samaj, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajlpc9910H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manoj Pandit Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/09/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. In Law & On Facts As Well As In Circumstances Of The Appellants Case, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 Has Erred In Not Quashing The Order Passed By The Ao. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-30 Has Erred In Upholding That The Ltcg Disclosed Are Not Genuine & Represent Undisclosed Income Of The A.Y.2015-16 Appellant & That He Has Resorted To Prearranged Method To Evade Taxes Through Ltcg, Although The Appellant Has Submitted All The Relevant Documents To Show That The Purchase & Sale Of Shares Were Genuine Transactions.

…sessee before the deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law. 4. For this proposition we place reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, in the said circumstanc…

M/S. BLOOMDALE FINVEST P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO -12(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

…tion. Moreover proposition that appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution without speaking order on merits is supported by following case laws :- a. CIT Vs. Preamkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR 302(Bom) b. CIT Vs. S. Chennaippa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1(SC) 7. Moreover it is settled law that even administrative orders have to be consistent with rules of natural justice as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. (300 ITR 403). 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we condon the delay in filing the appeal before learned CIT(A) a…

HEMRAJ KANARAM CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,19(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

…see before the deciding the matter of controversy in accordance with law. 4. For this proposition we placed reliance upon the following case laws. (1) CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 154 DTR (Bom) 302 (2) CIT Vs. S Chenniappa Mudaliar (1969) 74 ITR 1 (SC) 2 A.Y.2011-12 5. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the issue raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issue afresh and pass an order on the merits of the case after giving a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, in the said circumsta…