JAGDISH C. MANEK, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2429/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3304 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , J, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2429/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 JAGDIS H C. MANEK 11, LAXMI BLDG, 2 ND FLOOR, OFF TURNER RD. BANDRA (W) MUMBAI- 400050 / VS. ITO WD 12(2)(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 (ASSESSEE ) (REVENUE) P.A. NO. ACPPM8423L / ASSESSEE BY NONE / REVENUE BY SHRI ASHISH HELIWAL , (DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 07/03/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 16/03/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI- 23 {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, ORDER DATED 31.12.2012 PAS SED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. JAGDISH C. MANEK 2 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ASHISH HELIWAL, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE . 3. IT IS NOTED THAT NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE ON EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO, WHEREAS NOTICES HAVE BEE N DULY DISPATCHED AND SERVED UPON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO. THUS, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCEED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE EFFECTIVE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) I N UPHOLDING ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF I NFORMATION GENERATED FROM THE SYSTEM. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS COMPLETED EX PARTE U/S 144, IN ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN ASSESSEE FILED SOME ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK A CCOUNT. BUT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A AND THEREFORE, CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 3.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES. IN OUR OPINION THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRE REE XAMINATION BY THE AO, THEREFORE, WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SEN D THE ISSUE JAGDISH C. MANEK 3 RAISES IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO, WHO SHALL REEXAMINE ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE DECIDING THIS ISSUE AFRESH AND SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE REQUISITE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE S TO EXPLAIN SOURCES OF CASH DEPOSITED. THE ASSESSEE SHALL EXTEN D REQUISITE COOPERATION TO THE AO AND SHALL FILE DETAILS AND DO CUMENTS AS MAY BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE BY HIM AS PER LAW. TH US, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS SENT BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE AO. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MA Y BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 16/03 /2016 CTX? P.S/. .. # $%&'&($ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !'# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $# $# % ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. $# $# % / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. ()* # !+ , $# # +- , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '#( ! //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI