Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.57 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax Ahmedabad ... vs Kamlaben Sureshchandra ... on 17 February, 2014

The Ito, Ward-8(2),, Ahmedabad vs M/S. Surbhi Milkfood & Beverage Ltd.,, ... on 7 March, 2023

10.1 Coming to the case on hand, the assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that at the time of the assessment proceeding, its business was closed and the person who was looking after the accounting and taxation related work also had left. Therefore, the assessee was facing difficulties in locating the necessary details required by the AO. Accordingly, the same were not produced before the AO during the assessment proceedings. The learned CIT(A) in view of the above explanation furnished by the assessee accepted the additional evidences and before acting on such documents provided the AO an opportunity to verify the same. Thus, the learned CIT(A) safeguarded the interest of revenue while admitting the additional evidences furnished by the assessee. Therefore, considering the facts in totality and respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High in case of CIT vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the action of the learned CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Ito, Ward-7(2)(2), Ahmedabad vs Eam Fruits Llp, Ahmedabad on 31 May, 2022

Therefore respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case cited above, we hold that the revenue erred in objecting the admission of the additional evidences. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT-A and accordingly we uphold the same. Hence the ground of appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Ito, Ward-3(3)(5),, Ahmedabad vs M/S. Panchdeep Consultants,, ... on 31 August, 2022

5.1 In our considered view, we find no merit in this ground of appeal, as the ITAT Ahmedabad, had set aside the initial order of the CIT(Appeals)-IV vide order dated 13-09-2013 to the file of CIT for deciding the case on merits in the interests of justice after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ITAT was cognizant of the reasons why there was a delay by the assessee in filing the appeal and also the initial cause of non-appearance during the course of assessment proceedings. It was only after taking into consideration the circumstances under which the assessee could not cause appearance at the stage of initial assessment and also for the same reasons there was a delay in filing appeal before CIT in time, that the ITAT, in the interests of justice remanded the proceedings back to the file of CIT for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Further, we also observe that in the instant facts the assessee filed original return of income at a return loss of 68,979/-, and after making additions in the assessment order, the AO passed assessment order determining total income of the assessee at 6,23,74,520/-. Therefore, looking into the substantial quantum of additions made in the assessment, in the interests of justice, since the initial of assessment order was passed ex- parte, in our considered view, the CIT has not erred in facts and in law in I.T.A No. 543/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2002-03 Page No. 5 ITO vs. M/s. Panchdeep Consultants allowing the assessee to produce additional evidence in support of its contentions. Further, it is settled law CIT can allow admission of additional evidence, if it is necessary for determining the correct taxable income in the interest of justice. Further, we note that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) followed due process of law and admitted the additional evidence after calling for the comments of the AO in the remand report. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti [2014] 44 taxmann.com 459 (Gujarat) held that where Commissioner (Appeals) allowed assessee to produce additional evidence after calling remand report and permitting Assessing Officer to comment on such additional evidence, said order of Commissioner (Appeals) did not require any interference.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs The Dy.Cit.,Cent.Circle-1(1),, ... on 6 October, 2023

18. We have heard both the parties, and we find no reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) admitting the additional evidences. The difficulties faced by the assessee in producing the additional evidences, relating to the cash creditors, and evidence to prove the capital introduced in the various partnership concerns, as noted by the ld.CIT(A) have not been controverted by the ld.DR before us. Further, we agree with the ld.CIT(A) that the evidences were voluminous, pertained to seven assessment years, and related to issue which were of nine years' old, and this, we agree, requires considerable time for collection. We completely agree with the ld.CIT(A) that in the interest of justice, this additional evidence needed to be admitted, since the evidences went to the root of the matter to establish the case of the assessee. Further, we have noted that the report was sought from the AO on the additional evidence, and therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kamalben Sureshchandra Bhatti (supra), admission of the additional evidence by the ld.CIT(A) in the light of these facts, cannot be interfered with.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax on 14 October, 2015

In support of his claim, the ld AR placed reliance on the judicial pronouncements in the cases of Prabhavati Shah Vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom), CIT Vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti (2014) 367 ITR 692(Guj), Electra Jaipur P Ltd Vs. Inspecting ACIT (1988) 26 ITD 236(Del), CIT Vs. Jagjot Singh(2014)41taxman.com423(All), CIT Vs Unique Plastics P Ltd (2015) 60 Taxman.com ( AP& T), Jer Kersi Contractor V ITO Mum Trib ITA No. 1892/Mum/2009.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai Patel,, ... vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,, Anand on 22 September, 2017

3. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that it was a fit case in which learned CIT(A) ought to have admitted additional evidence and decided the matter, in the light of the additional evidences, on merits. He relies upon the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti [(2014) 367 ITR 692 (Guj.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next