DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI V. RAJESH ROADLINES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2095/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 88094 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JEETENDRA KUMAR

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D B ENCH, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2095/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX- 7(2) ROOM NO. 624, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020. / VS. M/S. RAJESH ROADLINES PVT. LTD. 399, NARSI NATHA STREET MUMBAI-400 009. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACR 2504 F ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JEETENDRA KUMAR - DR / RESPONDENT BY : NONE !' # $ / DATE OF HEARING : 2 1/01/2015 %&' $ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /01/2015 ( / O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2012 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN L AW IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS ABOUT THE CES SATION OF LIABILITY FOR A.Y. 2006-07, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FAC TUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX AS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS ABOUT THE CES SATION OF LIABILITY FOR A.Y. 2006-07, PRACTICALLY SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS, IGNORING THE FACT THAT SUCH SETTING ASIDE OF THE ORDER IS BEYOND THE POWERS OF LEARNED CIT(A). 3. THE LD. CIT(A)'S ORDER IS CONTRARY IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 2 ITA NO.2095/M/13 2. NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WH EN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING DESPITE REPEATED NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE . ACCORDINGLY WE PROPOSE TO HEAR THIS APPEAL EXPARTE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTICES CASH CREDIT IN THE NAME OF M/S. RAJESH ROADWAYS & RAJESH ROAD CNS OF R S.19,27,345/- AND RS.32,52,711/- RESPECTIVELY. THE AO ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO FURNISH THE BILLS RAISED BY THESE PARTIES AND THEIR LEDGER ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESS EE WAS ALSO ASKED TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME, P&L ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. THE AO HA S OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE REQUISITE DETAILS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.51,80,062/- . ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CEASED DURING THE ACCOUNTING Y EAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NO JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE RECORD OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND ISSUE DIRECTIONS AND ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NO T SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF T HE REVENUE IS THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY CIT(A) TO AO TO VERIFY THE FACT WHETHER THE LIABILI TY IN QUESTION CEASED TO EXIST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE DO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT CIT(A) HAS NO JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, HOWEVER, SINCE THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION FO R WANT OF RELEVANT RECORD AND BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A FACTUAL QUE STION OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE REQUIRES A PROPER VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE AND REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO FOR PROPER VERIF ICATION AND EXAMINATION. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT RECORD AS REQUI RED BY THE AO TO VERIFY THE FACT WHETHER THE LIABILITY IN QUESTION CEASED TO EXIST D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO FURNISH REQUISITE RECORD AND DETAILS THEN THE AO CAN TAKE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE. 3 ITA NO.2095/M/13 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/01/201 5 ( %&' ! ) *' + 30/01/2015 ,# SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER !-# MUMBAI; *' DATED 30/01/2015 . ' . ./ JV, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. , , !' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. #$ %' / GUARD FILE. & & & & / BY ORDER, & //TRUE COPY// ' ' ' ' / &( &( &( &( ) ) ) ) (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , !' / ITAT, MUMBAI.