ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai Manjuvedi Jotikumar Bhansali, Mumbai

Last updated: 02 January 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

This Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai case (ITA No.1250/Mum/2016) concerns an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The core issue is whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting an addition made by the ITO under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, relating to loans received by the assessee, Smt. Manjudevi Joitkumar Bhansali. The revenue also contested the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A).

Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This appeal in ITA No.1250/Mum/2016 for A.Y.2010-11 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-32/IT-447/ITO-15(2)(1)/13-14 dated 23/12/2015 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 22/03/2013 by the ld. Income Tax Officer – 15(2)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

Citation :
ITA No.1250/Mum/2016

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT),
‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM
&
SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM
ITA No.1250/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2010-11)

ITO 20(2)(2) Room No.212, Piramal Chamber Lalbagu, Mumbai – 400 012
PAN/GIR No. AABPJ8422J
(Appellant)

Vs.

Smt. Manjudevi Joitkumar Bhansali Room No.12, Pratiksha Tower, New Municipal Building, R.S.Nimkar Marg Mumbai – 400 008
(Respondent)

Revenue by Shri Oommen Tharian
Assessee by Shri Veerkumar Shah
Date of Hearing 23/11/2020
Date of Pronouncement 30/12/2020

O R D E R

PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

This appeal in ITA No.1250/Mum/2016 for A.Y.2010-11 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-32/IT-447/ITO-15(2)(1)/13-14 dated 23/12/2015 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 22/03/2013 by the ld. Income Tax Officer – 15(2)(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

2. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the ld. AO u/s.68 of the Act in respect of loans received from certain parties by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. We find that the revenue has also raised an additional ground stating that the ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting the additional evidences which were not produced by the assessee before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings as well as in remand proceedings.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The main issue is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in deleting an addition made by the Income Tax Officer concerning loans received by the assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

The parties are the Income Tax Officer (ITO) 20(2)(2), Mumbai (Appellant) and Smt. Manjudevi Joitkumar Bhansali (Respondent).

The relevant assessment year is 2010-11.

The primary section in question is Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which deals with cash credits.

The revenue raised an additional ground that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence not produced during the assessment or remand proceedings.