MILLENNIUM ESTAES P. TD, MUMBAI V. JCIT CIR 2(2) OSD, MUMBAI

ITA 1490/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8277 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVIDAS DADIA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, MUM BAI . , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI AMIT SHUKL A, JM ./ ITA NO. 1490/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. MILLENNIUM ESTATES P. LTD. / VS. DCIT, CIRCLE -2(2) (OSD) 30B, HIGH TIDE, JUHU TARA RD. SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI 400049 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 ./ PAN AACCM0311M / APPELLANT !' / RESPONDENT # $ / APPELLANT BY: SHRI DEVIDAS DADIA !' # $ / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AKHILENDRA YADAV %& # ( / DATE OF HEARING: 04.12.2014 )*+ # ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.12.2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-5, MUMBAI DATED 18.12.2012 FOR AY 2009-10. 2. ASSESSEES GROUNDS REVOLVE AROUND THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF ` 15,45,343/- BEING OPERATING COST INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE. HE ALSO RAISED A GROUND WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR ALLOWING THE SAID CLAI M IN EARLIER YEAR. 3. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUT ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN GENERAL AND PARA 3 IN PARTICULAR AND MENTIONED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER GIVING THE REASONS FOR CONFORMING THE ADDITION. FURTHER, THE C OUNSEL ALSO BOUGHT OUT ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK WERE NO T DISCUSSED WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION. AT THE END, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR REMANDING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TH E AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 1490/MUM/2013 M/S. MILLENNIUM ESTATES P. LTD. 2 4. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE WE FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT TAKEN INTO AC COUNT THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WERE ALSO NOT APPRECIATED WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 3.4 DOES NO T NOT CONSTITUTE A SPEAKING ORDER, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT OF ANY APPEA LABLE ORDER. CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONCLUSIONS OF TH E REVENUE AUTHORITIES WE FIND THAT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CON SIDERED FAVOURABLY. WE ACCORDINGLY REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE. THE AO SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESS EES GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ,- %./, # 0 1# 23 4 5 6 # 7 89 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH DECEMBER, 2014. # )*+ 0 :%- 04.12.2014 * # ;& SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER <& MUMBAI, :% DATED: 4 TH DECEMBER, 2014 COPY TO: 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5, MUMBAI 4. / THE CIT 2, MUMBAI CITY 5. =>; !%?. , ( ?. , <& THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ;/ @& / GUARD FILE. % / BY ORDER '= ! //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , <& ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.