OM SAI PRASAD ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1538/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0790 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM) . . , , ./ I .T.A. NO. 1538 / MUM/20 11 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2 007 - 08 ) OM SAI PRASAD ENTERPRISES, 501, JAY COMMERCIAL PLAZA, JUNCTION OF SL ROAD, AND M G ROAD, MULUND WEST, MUMBAI - 400080 / VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 23, C - 1 0 , PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA - KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400051. ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AASFO5449B / APPELLANT BY NONE / RSPONDENT BY SHRI DEEP KANT PRASAD / DATE OF HEARING : 6. 7 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6.7 . 201 5 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 13.1.2011 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 23, MUMBAI , UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1538 / MUM/20 11 2 2. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. FROM THE ORDER PASSED VT LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , WE NOTICE THAT THE COMMI SSIONER HAS LISTED OUT ITEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 27.2.2009. ACCORDING TO LD CIT, THOSE ISSUES SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT THE RIGHT TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY HE HAS INITIATED THE IMPUGNED REVISION PROCEEDINGS. A PERUSAL OF THE AO WOULD SHOW THAT THE AO DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE ISSUES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENT TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER WOULD RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY , WE DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY COMMISSIONER AND HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 6TH JULY , 2015. 6T H JULY , 2015 SD SD ( / AMIT SHUKLA ) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 6 TH JULY ,2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ITA NO. 1538 / MUM/20 11 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI