The Kolkata Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax -Appeals [CIT-A] and remanded the case back to the CIT for fresh adjudication, holding that the assessee was given inadequate opportunity to explain the receipt of Rs. 15,50,000 from his mother.
The Appellant, Subhash Sharma, filed an appeal before the Tribunal, disputing the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) & section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2014-15.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
The Assessing Officer rejected the Appellant’s claim for exemption, citing non-genuineness of the transaction of Rs. 15,50,000 received from his mother Smt. Kalawati Devi Sharma.
The CIT(A) had conducted an examination of the Appellant’s appeal and disallowed his claim due to non-compliance with the requirements under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The appellant, Subhash Sharma, represented by his counsel, Anil Kochar and Aryan Kochar, argued that the amount of Rs. 15,50,000 received from his mother was a genuine transaction, but failed to provide sufficient evidence before the CIT(A).
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
The Revenue Counsel Prabir Gupta, argued that the appellant had merely relied on the order u/s 263 of the Act in the case of his mother to justify the impugned transaction.
Further contended that the CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.15,50,000 as unexplained money.
The two-member Bench comprising Sonjoy Sarma ,Judicial Member Rathod along with Sanjay Aswathy ,Accountant Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata observed that the appellant relied on section 263 & 143(3) of Income Tax Act,1961 in the case of mother to justify the impugned transaction.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
Also the Bench noted there was no desirable level of compliance to notices fixing the case for hearing before the authorities by the appellant.
The Bench set aside the impugned order and sent the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after considering the facts surrounding the impugned transaction. The appeal filed by the assessee was thus allowed for statistical purposes.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
