IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI R.K. PANDA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2221/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 M/S. KASHMITA PROPERTIES LTD., VIJAY RAJ, PLOT NO. 288, 9 TH ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI-400 052 PAN-AAACK 8122C VS. THE DCIT 9(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI AMBRISH MEHTA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.K.B. MENON DATE OF HEARING :09.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: O R D E R PER B.R. MITTAL, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DISPUTING ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE DISALL OWANCE MADE BY AO OF PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS. 4,00,000/-. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL AR E THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE DEBITED SUM OF RS.15,91,80 0/- UNDER THE HEAD PROFESSIONAL FEES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE DETAILS ALONGWITH DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED INTER ALIA THAT SUM OF RS. 4,00,000/- WAS PAID TO MRS. MAYA BHATT S OLICITOR FOR DRAFTING OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND STATED THAT BILL IS NOT R EADILY AVAILABLE. THE ITA NO. 2221/M/2011 2 ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAID AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PREP ARED BY MRS. MAYA BHATT. 3. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CORR ECT AMOUNT PAID TO MRS. MAYA BHATT WAS RS. 3,00,000/- AND NOT RS. 4,00 ,000/- CONSIDERED BY AO. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO ON T HE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRAFTED FOR WHICH EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE. HENCE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNA L. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. AR REFERRED TO PAGE-8 OF PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF PROFESSIONAL FEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT SAID PROFESSIONAL FEES BEING PART OF OPENING WORK IN PRO GRESS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO AMOUNT WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE TOWAR DS PROFESSIONAL FEES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THUS NO AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BEL OW AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED PAGE-8 OF PAPER BOOK CONTAINING DETAILS UND ER THE HEAD DETAILS OF PROFESSIONAL FEES BEING PART OF OPENING WORK IN PRO GRESS. ON PERUSAL OF SAID DETAILS, WE OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO PAYMENT STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE TOWARDS PROFESSIONAL FEES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT NO AMOUNT TOWARDS PROFESSION FEES WAS DEBITED BY ASSESSEE IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IF IT IS SO, WE AGREE WITH LD. AR T HAT QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF ANY PROFESSIONAL FEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION DOES NOT ARISE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE CONSIDER IT PRUDENT TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY THE FACT AND DECIDE THE SAME A FRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, GRO UND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 2221/M/2011 3 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012 SD/- SD/- ( R.K. PANDA) (B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 13 TH JANUARY, 2012 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR A BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI