Tally
coaching
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

ITAT has directed A.O to examine the veracity of the additional documents being submitted by the M/s Pipal Tree venture P.Ltd before the learned CIT appeals.

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 30.01.2017 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10.

Citation :
ITA No. 2490/Mum/2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM

ITA No. 2490/Mum/2017
(Assessment Year: 2009-10)

Dy. CIT, Circle – 13(1)(2),
2nd Floor, Room No. 218,
Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road,
Mumbai-400 020
PAN/GIR No. AAECP 4464 E
(Appellant) 

Vs.

M/s. Pipal Tree Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
108/109, Mehta Industrial Estate,
I.B. Patel Road, Next to Swati
Studio, Goregaon, Mumbai -400 063
(Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Respondent by : Shri Krish Desai

Date of Hearing : 20.10.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2021

O R D E R

Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 30.01.2017 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10.

2. The grounds of appeal read as under:

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting fresh evidence in violation of Rule 46A of I.T. Income Tax Act, 1961, 1961.

2. Without prejudice to the admission of fresh evidence, whether the opportunity granted by the ld. CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer as described in para 6.3 of his orderdated 30.01.2017, can be considered sufficient, and if not, whether the order needs to be set aside to meet the substantial cause of justice.

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,75,00,000/- made u/s. 68 of I. T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to discharge primary onus cast upon it u/s. 68 during the course of assessment proceedings and the facts could not be investigated in appellate proceedings.

4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, othersubscribers such as B. Seenaiah & Co. and Kanwaldeep Investment Co. P. Ltd. being found acceptable as genuine by the A.O. has nay relevance to the genuineness of subscription of shares by M/s. KMC Construction Ltd.

5. The appellant prays that the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 22 January 2021
Published in Income Tax
Views : 21
downloaded 6 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags