PIYUSH JAYANTILAL SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO WD. 18(2)(3) NEW 21(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 2935/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1770 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMIR DALAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JM) I.T.A. NO. 2935 /MUM/ 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 0 7 ) PIYUSH JAYANTILAL SHAH B - 56, SILVER APARTMENT S.G. MARG, DADAR MUMBAI - 400 028. VS. ITO WAR D 18(2)(3) NEW WARD 21(2)(5) 107, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LALBAUG MUMBAI - 400 012. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AALPS6775P ASSESSEE BY SHRI SAMIR DALAL DEPARTMENT BY SHRI M.C. OMI NINGSHEN DATE OF HEARING 8 .1 2 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8 . 12 . 201 6 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01 - 02 - 2016 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 33, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD C IT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,89,490/ - MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED BANK DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE AO RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AGGREGATING TO RS.17,89,490/ - IN IDBI BANK. THE ASSESSEE DENIED THE SAME AND HENCE THE AO CALLED FOR DETAILS FROM THE BANK. WHEN THE DETAILS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION AND HENCE THE AO ASSESSED THE ABOVE SAID A MOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED EXPLANATIONS AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HENCE THE LD CIT(A) CALLED FOR PIYUSH JAYANTILAL SHAH 2 A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. HOWEVER THE AO OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. BEFORE LD CIT( A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE ACTUALLY ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO ON 30.12.2008 AND HENCE HE DID NOT HAVE TIME TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY DATING IT ON 29 - 12 - 2008. ACCORDINGLY HE PLEADED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS. THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 3. HAVING HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER EXPLANATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH BY DULY CONSIDERING THE INFORMATION AND EXPLANATIONS THAT MAY BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 .1 2 .2016 SD/ - SD/ - (AMIT SHUKLA ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 8 / 1 2 / 20 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI