ITO 9(1)(1), MUMBAI V. ASHISH BUILDERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2013/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55505 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PANKAJ TOPRANI
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.2013/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(1)(1) .. APPELLANT AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. VS ASHISH BUILDERS P. LTD. .. RESPONDEN T G-1, B-3, AKHIL TOWER, RATAN NAGAR, DAHISAR (E), MUMBAI. PA NO.AAACA 5024 F APPEARANCES: PARSHASARATHI NAIR, FOR THE APPELLANT PANKAJ TOPRANI , FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 11.82011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 -10-2011 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. IN THIS APPEAL, AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 4 TH JANUARY, 2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RAISED TH E FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BY TAKING CO GNIZANCE OF MOU OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH M/S. RASHMI PROPERTIES IN CONTRAVENT ION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES. I.T.A NO.2103/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 2 2. AS A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITS THAT ABOVE GR IEVANCE IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT INASMUCH AS THE MOU WITH RASHMI HOUSING PVT LTD WAS DULY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AN ANNEXEURE TO LETTER DATED 11 TH DECEMBER, 2008. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT AS STATED IN THE LETTER ITSELF AT THE BOTTOM, MOU WAS AN ANNEXURE TO THE SAID LETTER, AND THAT THE SAID LETTER HAS BEEN DULY REFERR ED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CON TROVERT THE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS EMBEDDED IN THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE . 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE G RIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INDEED ILL CONCEIVED. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LETTER DATED 11 TH DECEMBER, 2008 HAS BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REPRODUCTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE SAID LETTER. WE HAVE ALSO NO TED, AS EVIDENT FROM COPY OF THE SAID LETTER FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK, IT WAS STATED IN THE LETTER THAT ENCL. MOU WITH RASHMI HOUSING PVT LTD. DATED 11.5.2005. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THUS WHOLLY DEVOID OF ANY MERITS AND ILL CONCEIVED. WE REJECT THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH OCTOBER, 2011 SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 12 TH OCTOBER, 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),19, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 9 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH A MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI