, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI- E,BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SANDEEP GOSAIN,JUDICIAL MEMBER /.ITA NO.193 /MUM/14, /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 M/S. SAGAR SAREES 502, 503, JAI MAHAL, LINKING ROAD, KHAR (W) MUMBAI-400 052. PAN NO.AACFS 3735 J VS. ACIT- CIRCLE-19(1) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL MUMBAI-400 012. ( / ASSESSEE ) ( / RESPONDENT) /ASSESSEE BY :SH. B.G. SAKARIA-AR / REVENUE BY :SH. AARSI PRASAD-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 11 -2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01. 2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2013 OF CIT(A)-18 , MUMBAI THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLIN G OF SAREES AND DRESS MATERIALS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.9.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.20,27,790/-.THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) O F THE ACT ON 24.12.2010 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.27,35,920/-. 3. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS.6,83,085/-.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOW N A LIABILITY OF RS.6.83 LACS TOWARDS M/S. SAGAR SAREES AS ON 31.3.2008.HE DIRECTED IT TO FILE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN THAT REGARD. HE ALSO CALLED FOR DETAILS FROM HIS COUNTERPART I.E . ITO-19(1)(2), MUMBAI WHO WAS ASSESSING M/S.SAGAR.VIDE HIS LETTER DT.13.12.2010 HIS COUNTER PART INFORMED HIM THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. SAGAR THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT APPE ARING AS A DEBTOR. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID LETTER THE AO HELD THAT THE LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS.6.83 LACS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS M/S. SAGAR WAS NOT GENUINE.HE ADDED IT BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE DISPUTED AMOUNT WAS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S.SAGAR, THAT THE AO HAD NOT VERIFIED THE LEDGER AND PURCHASE ACCOUNT, THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF T HE ACT DT.27.6.2012 THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THE FAA HELD THAT HIS PREDECESSOR HAD CALLED FOR A REMAND R EPORT FROM THE AO TO VERIFY THE FACT AS TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF RS.6.83 LACS WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. SAGAR, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY DETAIL IN ITS SUPPOR T.FINALLY, HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE BALANCE SHEET AND AUDITED ACCOUNTS OF M/S. SAGAR, T HAT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S.SAGAR THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS APPEARING, THAT THE AO /FAA HAD NOT VERIFIED THE FACTS PROPERLY. 193/M/14-SAGAR SAREES 2 HE REFERRED TO PAGE NO.66, AND 76 OF THE PAPER BOOK .THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT IN THE SCHEDULE-D THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. SAGAR THE NAM E OF ASSESSEE IS APPEARING (PAGE NO.76 OF THE PAPER BOOK, ITEM NO.11 TABLE).CONSIDERING TH E PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DIRECTED TO AFFORD REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE.EFFECTIVE GROUND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE IN PART. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 1 ST JANUARY, 2015. 01 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( /SANDEEP GOSAIN ) ( / RAJENDRA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 01.01.2016 . . . JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR E BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.