Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

…e) of the Act would not be attracted in the present case. The Ld. AR denied the fact that it was not assessee‟s borrowal money and relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of „Smt Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) with regard to adducing additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand, contends that the assessee has not filed any affidavit stating that he has misunderstood the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and insisted the Ld. AR to file an affidavit for the same. The Ld. AR in reply to this, stated that it has been ta…

Mukesh Shivdas Sonar, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-3, Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

…e) of the Act would not be attracted in the present case. The Ld. AR denied the fact that it was not assessee‟s borrowal money and relied on the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of „Smt Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) with regard to adducing additional evidence before Ld. CIT(A). 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand, contends that the assessee has not filed any affidavit stating that he has misunderstood the provision of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act and insisted the Ld. AR to file an affidavit for the same. The Ld. AR in reply to this, stated that it has been ta…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

…ities without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard then the Assessee must be allowed to file additional evidences, for this we draw support from Keshav Mills v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)], Roshan v. CIT [107 ITR 938 (SC)] and Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [231 ITR 1]. Further in numerous cases including those of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court it has been held that when all the evidences are before the Tribunal, it must necessarily decide the issue instead of remanding the same. 24. Another important aspect of the matter is that the Ld.CIT(A) has made certain observations in his order which have not bee…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

…ities without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard then the Assessee must be allowed to file additional evidences, for this we draw support from Keshav Mills v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)], Roshan v. CIT [107 ITR 938 (SC)] and Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [231 ITR 1]. Further in numerous cases including those of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court it has been held that when all the evidences are before the Tribunal, it must necessarily decide the issue instead of remanding the same. 24. Another important aspect of the matter is that the Ld.CIT(A) has made certain observations in his order which have not bee…

Jajoo Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 4(3) Cen RG 4, Mumbai

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

…vidence go into the root of the issues. It is therefore, respectfully submitted that the aforesaid additional evidences may kindly be admitted in the interest of justice. The Appellant relies on the ratio laid by Bombay High Court Smt. Prabhavati Shah vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom) and PatnaTribunal in the case of Abhay Kumar 63 ITD 144 (Pat.)TM for admission of additional evidence. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of wholesale trading of cloth. It is also gathered that the assessee company got converted into a limited company from Private Limited Co…

ACIT- 19(3), Mumbai vs. Rajendra S. Bhate, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.3510/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–19(3), Mumbai v/s Rajendra S. Bhate 106, Marine Chambers ……………. Respondent New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020 PAN – ACJPB0504H C.O. no.221/Mum./2019 (Arising out of ITA no.3510/Mum./2018) (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Rajendra S. Bhate 106, Marine Chambers ……………. Cross Objector New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020 (Original Respondent) PAN – ACJPB0504H v/s Asstt. Commission…

ACIT - 25(2), Mumbai vs. Keniya Shirish Lakhamshi (HUF), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5385/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit -25(2) बिधम/ Shirish Lakhamshi Keniya R. No.508, C-10, 5Th Floor, (Huf) Vs. 4, Kalpana, Vile Parle (E), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai-400057. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. Co. No.188/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 5385/Mum/2018) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shirish Lakhamshi Keniya बिधम/ Acit-25(2) R. No.508, C-10, 5Th Floor, (Huf) Vs. 4, Kalpana, Vile Parle (E), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai-400057. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahk3064N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri S. Michael Jerald (Dr) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (Ar) & A. Gopalkrishanan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2020

…ce filed by the appellant, remand report and also the appellant's comments on remand report. In the remand report, the AO has objected to the admission of additional evidence. In the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT reported at 231 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, categorically pointed out that with the object of ensuring that evidence is primarily led before the Assessing Officer, Rule 46A(1) puts fetters on the right of the appellant to produce before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) any additional evidence, not previously raised before the Assessing Officer. However…