Case Law Details
Shashank Shekhar Singh Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the paper book filed by the assessee wherein the additional evidences produced by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) namely the Mutual Funds statement was issued on 01.04.2014 whereas the reassessment was passed on 26.03.2014 and another reason that matured FDR receipt could not be obtained by the assessee from its bankers, before passing of the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. Further considering the ill health of the assessee and transfer of his residence to New Delhi. We find that the assessee is sufficiently prevented from above reasons for not furnishing the above documents to the Assessing Officer. Therefore to meet the ends of justice, we deem fit it to set aside the case to the file of the Assessing Officer and give one more opportunity to the assessee to explain its case with these additional evidences as last opportunity by imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000/- as the assessee has not cooperated with the Assessing Officer. This cost of Rs. 10,000/- is payable to Prime Ministers Relief Fund within a period of four weeks on receipt of this order copy. Needless to say, the assessee should make use of this opportunity and furnish all the required documents, evidences and should cooperate with the Assessing Officer for passing the reassessment order. For the reason stated above, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
ITA No. 924/Ahd/2016 is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara, as against the Assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11 and ITA No. 2878/Ahd/2017 is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to the same Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual, Senior Citizen and retired employee from ONGC Ltd. on 31.03.2009, deriving income from Salary, House Property and other Sources. The assessee has not filed the Return of Income under 139(1) of the Act. Therefore a notice u/s. 148 was issued on 07.12.2012 and in response thereto the assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 17,26,770/- and paid taxes of Rs. 4,66,323/- and claiming a refund of Rs. 6,389/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
