Ms. Richa Chintan Shah Vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)(2), now ITO 41(3)(3)

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

In the instant case, the Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs.75,09,737/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of sale proceeds of the sales and added the same in the income of the Assessee. The Assessee challenged the addition by filing a first appeal on 21.01.2017 before the Ld. Commissioner. However, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal as ex-parte and dismissed the appeal of the Assessee upholding the assessment order/the addition made by the AO. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Despite sending notice to the Assessee, she neither appeared nor filed any adjournment application. Considering the fact that the Assessee did not reply to the notices sent by the Ld. Commissioner through emails and the long gaps in the dates of hearings, the ITAT is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate her case.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified?
• 2. Whether the Assessee is entitled to any leniency for her failure to comply with the notices and appear before the Tribunal?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Shri Shailesh Kantilal Shah vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(3)(1)

  Mumbai bench

• M/s Choudhari Construction Co. vs. Asst. CIT Circle-31(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• M/s. Capiqal Consultancy Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Panvel

  Mumbai bench

• Sangeeta Motilal Shahani Vs. ITO 27(3)(1)

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• M/s. Shivshakti Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Mumbai bench

• M/s Gujarat Plasto Industries Vs. The ITO

  Rajkot bench