MANJU BOHRA, MUMBAI V. D.C.I.T. 20(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2249/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83507 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R PATIL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVIN A NAVANDAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI .., ! , ' , # BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL, JM AND SHRI RAJENDRA, AM ITA NO.2249/MUM/2012 (A.Y.2007-08) MRS. MANJU BOHRA, C/O. Y.M.DESAI & CO. OFFICE 93/94, BLDG. NO.4, NITYANAND NAGAR, VIBHAG 4 SOCIETY, NEXT TO BETTER HOME FURNITURE MART, SWAMI NITYANAND MARG, ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI 400069 PAN: AAPPB7132B THE DCIT 20(2), MUMBAI. ( $% / // / APPELLANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( ()$%/ RESPONDENT) $% * + * + * + * + /APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVIN A. NAVANDAR ()$% * + * + * + * + /RESPONDENT BY :SHRI V.R.PATIL ' * ,-' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 14.8.2014 ./0 * ,-' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.08.2014 1 1 1 1 / / / / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL (JM) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-31 MUMBAI DATED 2/1/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: PART II GROUNDS OF APPEAL A. THE LEARNED DCIT HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING INTERE ST PAID ON BANK OVERDRAFT OF RS. 88,531/- U/S. 58 OF THE IT ACT. B. THE LEARNED DCII HAS ERRED IN TREATING THE SALE OF PLOT OF RS. 1,57,500/ AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND ALSO NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION FOR THE COST OF ACQUISITION FROM THE SALE VALUE OF PLOT. C. THE APPELLANT CRAVES RELIEF AS SHE HAD VACATED T HE PREMISES AT WHICH COMMUNICATIONS WERE SENT BY LEARNED CIT (A) AND CA LOOKING AFTER THE CASE HAD DISASSOCIATED, THEREFORE SHE COULD NOT EFFECTIVELY PRESENT HER CASE DURING CIT (APPEAL) STAGE. ITA NO.2249/MUM/2012 (A.Y.2007-08) 2 2. AS IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS AGITATING ADDITION OF RS.2,46,031/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE NOT CALLED FOR. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE IN THE SHAPE OF COPIES OF SALE AND P URCHASE AGREEMENTS IN RESPECT OF PLOTS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION; BAN K STATEMENTS OF OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT FROM WHICH THE INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID AND B ILLS OF PROFESSIONAL FEE PAID . IT IS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT THESE DOCUMENTS AR E REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT THESE DISALLOWANCES COU LD NOT BE MADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT ALL THESE EV IDENCES DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE SAME AND IT WAS PLEADED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF FURNISHING ALL THESE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND TO EXPLAIN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT WAS THE CASE OF LD. DR TH AT ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED WITH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTA NTIATE HER CLAIM, THEREFORE, ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. LOOKING INTO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SMALLNESS OF THE ADDITIONS AND ALSO THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED IN TH E PRESENT APPEAL AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PLACE ON RECORD ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION AND THEREAFTER RE-ADJUDICATE ALL THE ISSUES AS PER LAW. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. IT MAY BE MENTIONED H ERE THAT ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS AN EX-PARTE ORDER, THEREFORE, ALSO THE M ATTER REQUIRES RE-ADJUDICATION. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PR ESENT APPEAL TO THE FILE OF AO WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDIT IONS WHICH HAVE ALSO RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THEY ARE TO BE RE-ADJUDICATE D BY THE AO AS PER DIRECTIONS GIVEN ABOVE. ITA NO.2249/MUM/2012 (A.Y.2007-08) 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH AUG., 2014. 1 * ./0 2'3 14.08.2014 / * 9 SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (I.P.BANSAL) ' ' ' ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; 2' DATED : 14TH AUG. 2014. VM. 1 * (,: ; :0, 1 * (,: ; :0, 1 * (,: ; :0, 1 * (,: ; :0,/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $% / THE APPELLANT 2. ()$% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. <() / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. < / CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI 5. :?9 (,' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9@ A / GUARD FILE. 1' 1' 1' 1' / BY ORDER, ):, (, //TRUE COPY// B BB B/ // /C C C C (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI