Case Law Details
Paritosh Rungta Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, de novo adjudication ordered as CIT(A) didn’t rendered any finding on merits.
Facts- The assessee, an individual, has credited commission income of Rs. 1,79,89,972, and debited other expenses including loss from derivatives (F & O) of Rs.1,21,06,336, to the profit and loss account. Further, interest income of Rs.5,70,917, was shown as income from other sources.
Accordingly, vide assessment order dated 23/12/2016, passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act AO held that the claim of commission income of Rs.1,79,89,972, has not been substantiated by the assessee. In the absence of relevant details, evidence, and satisfactory explanation, the AO treated the credit of Rs.1,79,89,972, as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee.
Despite various notices, no reply/ submission was filed on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, ex-parte order was passed by CIT(A).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
