SANJAYKUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1220/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 101192 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RAM L AL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .T.A. NO. 1220/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 10 SHRI SANJAYKUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA, A - 1001, RUSHI TOWERS, SWAMY SAMARTH NAGAR, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI - 400 053 / VS. THE ITO, WARD - 8(3)(1), MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : SAAFPJ 7149G ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI PRAKASH JHUNJHUNWALA / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AJAY MODI / DATE OF HEARING : 1 4 .0 9 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 4 .0 9 .2015 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 18 , MUMBAI D ATED 1 0 .1 2 .2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0. 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ITA. NO. 1220/M/2013 2 WITHOUT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE RELATED PARTIES CASES POINTING OUT THAT UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AF TER GIVING A REASONABLE AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO FAIRLY CONCEDED TO THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO G ONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RELATED PARTIES CASES. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - REPRESENTATI ON OR IN PROPER REP RESENTATI ON OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) PROPERLY WHICH LEAD TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, QUALITY OF JUSTICE ASSUMES GREAT IMPORTANCE IN MATTERS OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BUT OF COURSE WITH DUE REGARD TO THE PRO CEDURES INVOLVED. WE, ACCORDINGLY REMIT ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED TO THE RECORD OF THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA. NO. 1220/M/2013 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 1 4 TH SEPTEMBER , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAM L AL NEGI ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 1 4 TH SEPTEMBER , 2015 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI