Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_082.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 195 Views


Tax Publishers Sri Halimpure Sharanappa Premsagar v. ITO [ITA No. 3070/Bang/2018, dt. 11-9-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3625 (Bang-Trib) Additions made under different head by Commissioner (Appeals) without giving opportunity to assessee under section 251(2) for enhancement *Facts:* Assessee had deposited cash in bank account for Rs. 12.91 lakhs which were added under section 68. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelled the addition and sustained it under section 69A. On higher appeal to ITAT the plea of the assessee was the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have sustained the additions without offering a proper opportunity to assessee under section 251(2) so the "enhancement" of addition was not sustainable. Revenue contested that this was no enhancement but only change of the section thus no resort to section 251(2) was warranted. On higher appeal - Held against the revenue/in favour of the assessee that the addition done by the first appellate authority without resort to section 251(2) was incorrect. The Commissioner (Appeals) like ITAT should have confined itself to the questions of the appeal and cannot travel beyond it. *Applied:* Sri Girish V. Yalakkishettar v. ITO, ITA Nos. 354 & 355/Bang/2019, Order, dated 27-1-2020 : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 0634 (Bang-Trib) *Editorial Note:* The powers of Commissioner (Appeals) and ITAT are wide enough nonetheless if the fair principles of audi alteram partem is not resorted to then the same deserves to be quashed which is what was done by ITAT in this case. Section 69A is on unexplained money vis-a-vis section 68 which is on cash credits totally different in texture/content.

Tax Publishers

Sri Halimpure Sharanappa Premsagar v. ITO [ITA No. 3070/Bang/2018, dt. 11-9-2020] : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3625 (Bang-Trib)

Additions made under different head by Commissioner (Appeals) without giving opportunity to assessee under section 251(2) for enhancement

Facts:

Assessee had deposited cash in bank account for Rs. 12.91 lakhs which were added under section 68. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) cancelled the addition and sustained it under section 69A. On higher appeal to ITAT the plea of the assessee was the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have sustained the additions without offering a proper opportunity to assessee under section 251(2) so the "enhancement" of addition was not sustainable. Revenue contested that this was no enhancement but only change of the section thus no resort to section 251(2) was warranted. On higher appeal -

Held against the revenue/in favour of the assessee that the addition done by the first appellate authority without resort to section 251(2) was incorrect. The Commissioner (Appeals) like ITAT should have confined itself to the questions of the appeal and cannot travel beyond it.

Applied: Sri Girish V. Yalakkishettar v. ITO, ITA Nos. 354 & 355/Bang/2019, Order, dated 27-1-2020 : 2020 TaxPub(DT) 0634 (Bang-Trib)

Editorial Note: The powers of Commissioner (Appeals) and ITAT are wide enough nonetheless if the fair principles of audi alteram partem is not resorted to then the same deserves to be quashed which is what was done by ITAT in this case. Section 69A is on unexplained money vis-a-vis section 68 which is on cash credits totally different in texture/content.