Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Grants Final Opportunity to Appellant for Representation

Case Name:

Devang Jitendra Mashru vs. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4), Mumbai

Key Takeaways:

1. The appellant raised grounds of appeal against the order of the CIT(A), challenging the addition of undisclosed income from the sale of property and unexplained investment in shares.
2. The assessing officer reopened the assessment based on information about the sale of immovable property and made additions to the appellant’s income.
3. The appellant did not make any representation before the CIT(A), and the appeal was dismissed exparte, confirming the additions made by the assessing officer.
4. The Tribunal granted one final opportunity to the appellant by remitting the issue back to the CIT(A) to examine the case afresh on merits by calling for details as may be required.
5. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Case Synopsis:

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, regarding the case of Devang Jitendra Mashru for the assessment year 2010-11. The case involves an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 26.05.2023.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points from the document:

1. Case Details:

• Case Number: I.T.A. No.2500 /Mum/2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-11
• Appellant: Devang Jitendra Mashru
• Address: 42-B, Forjet Street, Sai Kripa Bldg, 1st Floor, Gowalia Tank, Mumbai
• PAN: AACPM4148H
• Respondent: Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4), Mumbai

2. Grounds of Appeal:

• The appellant raised several grounds of appeal against the order of the CIT(A), including challenging the addition of Rs. 37,93,000/- as undisclosed income from the sale of property and the addition of Rs. 6,36,961/- on account of the purchase of shares.

3. Assessment by the Assessing Officer:

• The assessing officer reopened the assessment under section 147 (of Income Tax Act, 1961) based on information that the assessee had sold immovable property during the relevant year. The officer made additions to the income, including the aforementioned amounts, as undisclosed income and unexplained investment.

4. Appeal Before CIT(A):

• The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A) but did not make any representation before the authority. As a result, the appeal was dismissed exparte, confirming the additions made by the assessing officer.

5. Arguments and Decision by the Tribunal:

• The authorized representative (AR) of the appellant requested one more chance to represent the case before the lower authorities, citing the appellant’s lack of awareness of the income tax proceedings.
• The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the appellant had been a habitual defaulter in not representing the case and that the additions made should be confirmed.
• The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, decided to give one final opportunity to the appellant by remitting the issue back to the CIT(A) to examine the case afresh on merits by calling for details as may be required.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 27/10/2023.

FAQ:

Q1: What were the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant?

A1: The appellant challenged the addition of undisclosed income from the sale of property and unexplained investment in shares.

Q2: Why was the assessment reopened by the assessing officer?

A2: The assessment was reopened based on information about the sale of immovable property by the appellant.

Q3: What was the outcome of the appeal before the CIT(A)?

A3: The appellant did not make any representation before the CIT(A), and the appeal was dismissed exparte, confirming the additions made by the assessing officer.

Q4: What decision was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?

A4: The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination, granting the appellant a final opportunity to present the case.