ANURADHA JAYADEV THACKERAY, MUMBAI V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 23(1), Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 1289/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0806 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL SHAH
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 143(2); 23(1)

Judgement Text

P a g e | 1 ITA No.1289/Mum/2024 Anuradha Jayadev Thackeray Vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI ]]]] BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA No.1289/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Anuradha Jayadev Thackeray, 101, Dallas Apts, Kalanagar, Bandra East, Maharashtra – 400051 Vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1) Piramal Chambers Mumbai – 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: ABPPN6286M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Vipul Shah Respondent by : Raj Singh Meel [[ Date of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) NFAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in utter violation of the principles of natural justice without appreciating the fact that the Appellant did not receive notices of hearing 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment on presumption without any material in his possession 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification after accepting the fact that the assessment was completed in haste due to time barring date. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the same on merits. P a g e | 2 ITA No.1289/Mum/2024 Anuradha Jayadev Thackeray Vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1) 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing interest expense of Rs. 33,18,229/- u/s. 57 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") without appreciating the fact that the same was paid for earning the income 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant had vide reply dated 02.11.2019 and 17 11.2019 provided all the details as called for by the learned Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) has wrongly dismissed the appeal by recording that the Appellant has failed to respond to any of the notices during the assessment proceedings The Appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.43,23,010/- was filed on 26.03.2018. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 09.08.2018. The assessing officer finalised the assessment on 21.12.2019 after making disallowance of Rs.33,18,229/- u/s 57 of the Act. The assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.33,18,229/- u/s 57 of the Act against the income earned from other sources of Rs.75,10,037/- . The assessing officer has disallowed the claim of deduction on the ground that during the course of assessment assessee has not submitted any relevant documentary evidences to substantiate the claim of deduction u/s 57 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating on merit on the ground that assessee had not made compliance to the notices of hearing issued by the ld. CIT(A). 4. Before us the ld. Counsel submitted that at the time of assessment the assessing officer has not given sufficient time period to the assessee to produce the required document. He submitted that assessing officer has issued show cause notice on 12.12.2019 and asked to make compliance within a period of 3 days on 16.12.2019 and passed the assessment order on 21.12.2019. He further submitted that during the P a g e | 3 ITA No.1289/Mum/2024 Anuradha Jayadev Thackeray Vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1) course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has not received any notice issued by the CIT(A) NFAC. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on the reason that assessee has failed to make compliance before the ld. CIT(A). In this regard, the assessee submitted that no notice has been received on the email referred in the Form No. 35 of the appeal filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). During the course of assessment the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 57 amounting Rs.33,18,229/- was disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee on the ground that relevant supporting documentary evidences was not furnished by the assessee. 6. Looking to the above facts and circumstances it is evident that the case of the assessee both at the level of assessing officer and CIT(A) the case of the assessee was not decided on merit because of the various anomalies observed at the time of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings as discussed supra in this order. Under the circumstances in order to decide the issue on merit it is required to consider and examine the relevant document and supporting evidences which the assessee could not produce because of the circumstances as discussed supra in this order. Normally whenever any irregularity krept in the proceedings then after removing the irregularity proceedings is to be initiated from that stage but by remitting the issue to the ld. first appellate authority we would be multiplying the litigation because the ld. CIT(A) would call for remand report from the AO and proceeding would commence on two stages in order to avoid that situation we would deem it proper to set aside the order to the file of assessing officer for deciding afresh on merit after examination and verification of the relevant supporting document to be produced by the assessee in the set aside proceeding. It is needless to say that observation made by us will P a g e | 4 ITA No.1289/Mum/2024 Anuradha Jayadev Thackeray Vs. ACIT, Circle 23(1) not injure or impair the case of the AO and will not cause any prejudice to the defence explanation of the assessee, therefore appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.06.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Rahul Chaudhary) (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 24.06.2024 Rohit: PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.