ARVIND DAGLI, MUMBAI V. ITO 11(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1289/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88078 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHCHIDANAND DUBE
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY KOTHARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 1289/M/2011 ( AY: 2005 - 20 06 ) ARVIND DAGLI, MOHANLAL JAIN & CO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 10, CHARTERED HOUSE, GR. FLOOR, DR. C.H. ST, MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 020. / VS. ITO 11(2)(1), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAIPD 1304 J ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY KOTHARI / REVENUE BY : SHRI SACHCHIDANAND DUBE, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 29 .1.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :29 .1.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11.2.2011 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 3, MUMBAI DATED 10.11.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 2006. IN THIS APPEAL, CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS IN TOTO QUESTIONING THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT. ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED GROUND QUESTIONING THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 46A OF IT RULES, 1962. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.1.2015 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE DELAY IN FURNISHING THE ABOVE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IS ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESS EES ABSENCE IN INDIA. IT IS A F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NOT ADMITTED BY THE CIT (A) INVOKING 2 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 46A OF THE ACT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A PRAYER FOR REMANDING THE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER ADMITTING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A). 4. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THERE IS A REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE SAID ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES BELATEDLY BEFORE THE CIT (A). IN OUR OPINION, THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA CAN CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH IS AFFIRMED IN THE SAID AFFIDAVIT (SUPRA). THERE IS NO ADVERSE FINDING OF FACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SA ID REASON. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE CIT (A) TO ADMIT THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND FURTHER EVIDENCES, IF ANY, RELATING TO THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. CIT (A) MAY CALL FOR REMAND REPORT, IF ANY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN THIS REGARD. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 TH JANUARY, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (AMIT SHUKLA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 29 .1 .2014 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 3 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI