Aravind Arunachalam Vellore Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The appellant is an individual. He was issued a re-opening notice under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The commission paid to various parties was sought to be disallowed and added to the income. It was confirmed by the assessing officer. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT.
The Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A).
It held:
(i) the order was passed ex-parte as none of the notices were communicated to the appellant;
(ii) mere uploading on the ITBA portal is not sufficient as the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have sent notices by email, else there is no need to mention email id in Form 35 (Form of appeal to CIT(A);
(iii) the assessee had given postal address also in Form 35. Though the assessee should have been vigilant; as the order has been passed without proper notice, it is required to be set aside.
The matter was argued by Ld. Counsel Bharat Raichandani along with Bhagrati Sahu
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) Delhi dated 19.03.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: –
The appellant above named is filing the present appeal on the following amongst other grounds which are urged herewith without prejudice to one another –
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in passing the order under section 250 of the Income tax act 1961 dated 19.03.2024 and adding the income of Rs. 42,53,051/-.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act by stating the reason to belief as being in order to verify the receipt of commission under section 194H, source of credit card payment and interest under section 194A and further erred in law and in fact to change the reason of belief at the time of objection filed by the appellant;
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in not taking into consideration the submission/evidence/documents and the ground of appeal filed by the appellant.
4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in not taking into consideration the bank statement highlighting the payment paid and making addition of 10,65,581/- under section 69 of income Tax Act, 1961.
5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in not taking into consideration that the time deposit of Rs. 10, 75,000/- with HDFC Bank Ltd. relates to financial year 2015-2016 and 2016-17. Therefore, it cannot be added to the income of assessment year 2012-2013.
6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and in fact in making the addition of Rs. 21,12,470/- and not taking into consideration the details provided of commission paid vide reply dated on 17th December 2019. Details of commission paid are as follows.
