9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e earlier – Following the decision in Hitesh S. Mehta Versus DCIT CC 23, Mumbai [2014 (7) TMI 836 - ITAT MUMBAI] - thus, the AO is directed to provide the copies of all information on which basis, the AO wanted to made additions in the hands of the assessee and the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 2694/Mum./2012 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2014 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Amit Shukla,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Mehta For the Respondent : Dr. P. Danial, Special Counsel a/w Mr. Morya Pratap ORDER Per Amit Shukla, J. M. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee, challenging the impugned order dated 29th February 2012, passed by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the original assessment proceedings but only during the set aside proceedings. 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in upholding the determination of unaccounted investments as per Annexure 1 of the assessment order amounting to ₹ 33,86,87,172/- on the basis of the information collected from various companies allegedly showing the shareholding of the appellant without appreciating that the copies of the said letters/information was neither provided to the appellant during assessment proceedings nor during remand proceedings. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and In facts in confirming the value of the unexplained investment based on the average o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the provisions of s. 220(2) of the Act cannot be invoked in case of a notified entity. 2. Besides this, the assessee has also raised additional ground, which reads as under: The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that as per the decision of Hon'ble Special Court dated 30.04.2010 in MP no.41 of 1999, the assets under consideration and the consequential income belongs to Shri Harshad S. Mehta and hence the income assessed by the Assessing Officer ought to have been taxed in the hands of Shri Harshad S. Mehta, and not in the hands of the appellant. 3. Before us, the learned Counsel, Mr. Vijay Mehta, on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the grounds raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n other cases also, similar grounds were raised. In these cases, the Tribunal has set aside the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment denovo. Since the facts of the assessee s case are similar to other cases viz. Hitesh S. Mehta, Rasila S. Mehta, Jyoti H. Mehta and Pratima H. Mehta, cited above, therefore, for the sake of ready reference, the relevant findings, as given in the decision of Rasila S. Mehta, is reproduced herein below: 3.2 Having considered the rival submissions and careful perusal of the relevant material on record, we note that the CIT(A) while deciding the matter has relied upon the order in the case of Shri Hitesh 5 Mehta, as it is evident from para 9.20 as well as para 10.1 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument of Id. DR that assessee can collect information from parties from where Assessing Officer has obtained the copies on which basis the addition have been made, Therefore, Assessing Officer is directed to provide the copies of all information on which basis, the AO wanted to made additions in the hands of the assessee. If the AO does not provide the material then in our view addition cannot be made, In view of above facts and circumstances, we set aside order of the authorities below and restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass assessment de novo after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and as per observations of ours made in the order as above. We order accordingly. 4 Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
