QUALITY INTEX P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 9(3)(4),

ITA 2391/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62467 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAM UPADYA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, A ND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2391/MUM./2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200405 ) M/S. QUALITY INTEX P. LTD. UNIT NO.130, B1, SONAL INDL. ESTATE LINK ROAD, KACHAPADA, MALAD (W) MUMBAI 400 064 PAN AAACQ0695G .. APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD9(3)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN 101, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. RAM UPADYA REVENUE BY : MR. P.C. MAURYA DATE OF HEARING 21.05.2012 DATE OF ORDER 25.05.2012 O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY THE PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DI RECTED AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20 TH JANUARY 2009, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CENTRALI, MUMBAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200405. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, READS AS FOLLOWS:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ADDING THE SUM OF ` 4,55,059 BEING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE DIFFERENT PARTIES I.E., M /S. TREND PHARMA P. LTD., M/S. GOPAL DAS VISHRAM & COMPANY AND M/S. P.R . ENTERPRISES M/S. QUALITY INTEX P. LTD. 2 UNDER INCOME TAX ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE JUDICI AL AND NOT APPLYING THE NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AS SESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAD OFFERED THE SAID AMOUNT TO TAX IN THE S UBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR BY INCLUDING THEM IN ITS TURNOVER. THIS FACT N EEDS VERIFICATION; AS OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE A CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION. T HE BURDEN WOULD BE ON ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO PROVE THAT THIS IS A CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION. IF IT IS SO PROVED, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT MAKE THE SAID ADDITION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH MAY 2012 SD/- R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 25 TH MAY 2012 COPY TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE RESPONDENT; (3) THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, CONCERNED; (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI