INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), MUMBAI NARENDRAKUMAR GOYAL, MUMBAI

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal case (ITA No.4309/Mum/2017) concerns an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against a decision made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The revenue's grounds of appeal focus on the CIT(A) allegedly failing to provide the assessing officer an opportunity to respond to additional evidence submitted by the assessee, and deleting a significant addition without proper cross-verification. The revenue seeks to have the CIT(A)'s order vacated and the assessing officer's original assessment restored.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT), ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM
&
SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

ITA No.4309/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year :2009-10)

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Kalyan 1st Floor, Mohan Plaza Wayale Nagar, Khadak Pada Kalyan (W) – 421 301
(Appellant)

Vs.

Shri Narendrakumar Goyal Prop. M/s. Neeraj Trading Company, Gala No.2, B Building, Rajlaxmi Commercial Complex Kalher, Bhiwandi – 421 302
PAN/GIR No. AAOPG1214A

(Respondent)

Revenue by Shri Rajendra Joshi
Assessee by Ms. Neha Paranjpe
Date of Hearing 02/12/2020
Date of Pronouncement 04/12/2020
 
O R D E R 

PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

This appeal in ITA No.4309/Mum/2017 for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad in appeal No.THN/CIT(A)-2/511/2015-16 dated 27/03/2017 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/03/2015 by the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Kalyan (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2. The revenue has raised the following grounds:- 

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) erred in not giving any opportunity by calling remand report from the assessing officer on the additional evidence submitted by the assessee at appeal stage, as required u/r 46A of Income Tax Rules, neither he called for the case records to verify the facts. 

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition without subjecting the set off issue to any cross verification even though the amount was so huge. 

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the C1T(A) required to be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 

4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal.

To know more in details find the attachment file