Case Law Details
Maheshbhai Nagjibhai Desai Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
In the case of Maheshbhai Nagjibhai Desai Vs ITO, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, reviewed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issues involved were the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the confirmation of an addition of ₹28,50,000 as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the total income of ₹42,40,590, as opposed to the returned income of ₹1,50,820, due to the non-submission of supporting documents regarding property acquisition. The CIT(A) upheld the AO’s order, noting that additional details were not submitted at the assessment stage.
The ITAT, considering the assessee’s plea for an opportunity to present evidence, remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The tribunal emphasized that providing a chance to submit relevant documents would not prejudice the Revenue. It directed the AO to reevaluate the case, taking into account the submissions provided by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced on November 29, 2024.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)” for short), dated 23.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13.
2. The Assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in reopening the case of the appellant u/s 147 of the act.
2. The CIT(A) erred in law and in the facts of the case in confirming the order of the AO in confirming addition of Rs. 28,50,000/- being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.”
3. In this case, the assessment order has been passed by the ITO, Ward 3(2)(10), Ahmedabad on 24.12.2019 determining total income of Rs.42,40,590/- against the returned income of Rs.1,50,820/- on account of investment involved in acquisition of property owing to non-furnishing of supported documents. . The ld. CIT(A) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer disregarding the details filed before him on the grounds that the same were not claimed before the Assessing Officer.
4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has filed an appeal before the
5. Before us, it was submitted that given an opportunity these details would be furnished before the Assessing Officer. We find that no prejudice would be caused to the Revenue if an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee. The ld. DR fairly accepted the proposal. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer with directions to pass an order de novo, after considering the submissions filed by the assessee.
6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 29.11.2024
Author Bio
