RAMA NARAYANA S. PRASAD ACHANTA, DELHI V. ACIT 26(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2212/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3153 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRA VIJAY
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 2212/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) SHRI RAM NARAYANA S. PRASAD ACHANTA LEGAL CONSULTANT, ATHENA KYNSHI, 1 ST FLOOR, NBCC TOWER, 15, BIKAJI CAMA PLACE, DELHI - 110066 APPE LLANT VS. ACIT 26(2), MUMBAI RESPONDENT PAN: ABKPA6110C /BY APPELLANT : SHRI HIMANSHU GANDHI, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT :SHRI CHANDRA VIJAY, D.R. /DATE OF HEARING :23.09.2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :30.09.2015 ORDER PER ASHWANI TANEJA, A.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-28, MUMBAI, DATED 08.01.2014 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 PASSED AGAINST TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) DATED 21.12.2010. ITA NO.2212/MUM/14 A.Y.08-09 [SHRI RAM NARAYANA S. PRASAD ACHANTA VS. ACIT] PAGE 2 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AL ONG WITH THE APPEAL MEMO: 1) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF HRA OF RS.41,182/- UNDER INCOME FROM SALARY AND ASSESSE D AS ALARY INCOME. 2) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS.77,958/- BEING INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN. 3) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALL OWANCE OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE OF RS.55,150/-, TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS.40,500/- AND SUNDRY EXPENSES OF RS.35,970/-. 4) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD FURTHER GROUNDS OR TO AMEND OR ALTER THE EXISTING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE T HE DATE OF HEARING. 3. DURING COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E LD. COUNSEL THAT ALTHOUGH, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEE N PASSED U/S.143(3), BUT THE SAME IS EX PARTE AS MAY BE SEEN FROM PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THA T ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMIS SIONS AND SUBMITTED EVIDENCES AS WERE AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE . THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT. BUT, THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSIDERED PROPE RLY, EITHER BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND REPORT OR BY LD.CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING FIRST APPEAL. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHIFTING FROM ONE CITY TO OTHER AND AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF DISLOCATION AND RE-LOCATION, CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCES COULD NOT BE GATHERED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME ADVERSE INFERENCES WERE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BANK CERTIFICATES ETC. WERE LOST DUE TO FREQUENT ITA NO.2212/MUM/14 A.Y.08-09 [SHRI RAM NARAYANA S. PRASAD ACHANTA VS. ACIT] PAGE 3 SHIFTING OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS REQUESTED TO ENFORCE HIS POWER UNDER THE LAW TO OBT AIN THE SAME DIRECTLY FROM THE CONCERNED BANKERS. BUT, REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND ADDITIONS /DISALLOWAN CES WERE MADE, DISREGARDING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS NOTED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A), REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, DETAILED R EJOINDER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT LD . CIT(A), WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUES, HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN NON SP EAKING MANNER, WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCE S FACED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THESE ISSUES DESERVE TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE SHALL EXTEND FULL CO-OPERATION TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND SUBMIT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND DETAILS AS REQ UIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSING O FFICER CAN EXERCISE HIS SUITABLE POWERS UNDER LAW TO CALL FOR BANK CERTIFICATE DIRECTLY FROM THE CONCERNED BANKERS, IF SO REQUIRED . THE ASSESSEE SHALL FURNISH REQUISITE PARTICULARS OF THE BANK I.E . NAME AND ITA NO.2212/MUM/14 A.Y.08-09 [SHRI RAM NARAYANA S. PRASAD ACHANTA VS. ACIT] PAGE 4 ADDRESS, TO ENABLE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE DIRECT INQUIRIES, AS PER LAW AND FACTS. IN TERMS OF THESE DIRECTIONS, A LL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE AFORESAID GROUNDS ARE SENT BACK TO TH E FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: DATED 30/09/2015 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE !# / ASSESSEE $ %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT * )+ / CIT (A) ,-./00'(1 '( 12 %& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3/4567 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / #8 1 9: ;% 1 '( 12 %&<