C.R.RAJESH NAIR , MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERSTWHILE WARD 8(3), NOW DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5015/MUM/2017

AI Insights

The case involves C. R. Rajesh Nair, an appellant, who is a director in M/s. Sigrun Realties Ltd. and Gee Kay Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18, Mumbai. The dispute pertains to the Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, focusing on additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained cash deposits. The assessee had declared various losses and income in his tax returns, which were scrutinized, leading to a significant increase in assessed income. The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s additions due to insufficient evidence provided by the assessee regarding the transactions in question. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, seeking another opportunity to present evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125207 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2028
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C ” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM IT A N os . 50 15 & 5 01 6/ Mu m/ 20 17 (As se ss me nt Y ea rs : 20 11 -1 2 & 20 12 -1 3) C. R. Rajesh Nair C/o. Manish D. Ladage and Co., 107/108, 1 st Floor, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. Dy. CIT, Mumbai PA N/ GI R No . AD R PN 0 41 3 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri M. S. Mathuria Respondent by : Ms. Samruddhi Hande Dat e of H ea ri ng : 09.12.2022 Dat e of P ro no un ce me nt : 23.12.2022 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J. M.: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) – 18, Mumbai passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. The assessee has challenged the ground of addition u/s. 68 of the Act on unexplained cash deposit, along with the various other grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a director in M/s. Sigrun Realties Ltd. and Gee Kay Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd. (now known as Sigrun Holdigns Ltd.) and has 2 I T A N o s . 5 0 1 5 & 5 0 1 6 / M / 1 7 ( A . Y s . 1 1 - 1 2 & 1 2 - 1 3 C. R. Rajesh Nair vs. Dy. CIT received remuneration of Rs.57,51,960/-. The assessee had also declared loss from house property of Rs.1,50,000/-, loss from business/profession of Rs.27,06,717/-, loss from long term capital gain of RS.13,92,912/- and income of Rs.1,26,477/- under the head ‘income from other sources’. The assessee has filed his return of income dated 31.03.2012, declaring total income of Rs.55,01,960.- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated 28.03.2014 was passed u/s. 143(3), determining the total income at Rs.10,61,82,862/- by making the various addition/disallowances. The assessee had challenged the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A). 4. The ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the additions made by the A.O. on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish the details as to the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the impugned transaction and has failed to discharge the burden casted upon the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order of the A.O. on the other grounds as well for the reason that the assessee has failed to produce any proof to substantiate his claim. 5. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 6. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) for the assessee contended that the assessee’s transactions were genuine and that the assessee proposes to file the additional evidence before the A.O. to substantiate his claim. The ld. AR prayed for one more opportunity to present the assessee’s case before the A.O. 3 I T A N o s . 5 0 1 5 & 5 0 1 6 / M / 1 7 ( A . Y s . 1 1 - 1 2 & 1 2 - 1 3 C. R. Rajesh Nair vs. Dy. CIT 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) had nothing to controvert the same. 8. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We deem it fit and proper to provide the assessee with one last opportunity to furnish the documentary evidence in support of his claim before the A.O. as in accordance with the principle of natural justice. The assessee is directed to co-operate in the proceedings before the A.O. by furnishing all the relevant documentary evidence without causing delay. The A.O. is directed to peruse the same and to decide the case on merits. We hereby remand both these appeals to the file of the A.O. for de novo adjudication. 5. In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Kavitha Rajagopal) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai; Dated : Roshani , Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai