ANJALI KOTAK, MUMBAI V. ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2471/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1472 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , AM ./ I.T.A. NO S.2920 / MUM/ 201 1, 1881/MU M /2012, 2471/MUM/2011, 1882/MUM/2012 AND 29 21/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEA RS : ( 1999 - 2000, 2 000 - 01, 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03 AND 2003 - 04 ) MRS.ANJALI KOTAK, TULIPS HOUSE, 3 RD FLOOR, 101,SHIVAJI PARK, DA DAR, MUMBAI - 400028. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 17(1)940, ROOM NO.112, 1ST FLOOR,PIRA MAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400012. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN: AHAPK3421G / APPELLANT BY : NONE /R ESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR YADAV / DATE OF HEARING : 4.4.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4.4. 2017 / O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: THESE FIVE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE APPELLATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THESE APPEALS PERTAIN TO SAME AS SESSEE AND GROUND OF APPEAL 2 I.T.A. NOS.2920 / MUM/ 201 1, 1881/MU/2012, 2471/MUM/2011, 1882/MUM/2012 AND 2921/MUM/2011 RAISED THEREIN IS IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE THESE APPEAL S ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DECIDED BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION HERE THAT NEI THER THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHEN THE APPEALS WERE CALLED FOR HEARING NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RP AD ON THE PREVIOUS HEARING ON 27.10.2016 . T HEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE EX - PARTE AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR. ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2011 . 3 . AT THE OUTSET, UPON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED AND THE AO SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 20.9.2010. THE FAA SUPPLIED A COPY OF REMAND REPORT O F THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 26.10.2010. HOWEVER, ON 26.10.2010 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO AND THE CASE WAS 3 I.T.A. NOS.2920 / MUM/ 201 1, 1881/MU/2012, 2471/MUM/2011, 1882/MUM/2012 AND 2921/MUM/2011 ADJOURNED TO 30.12.2010. ON 30.12.2010, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE LD.C IT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HIM. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE FAA , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHEREIN ONE OF THE GROUND IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERR ED IN NOT ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE UNDE R RULE 46A OF THE RU LES. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE US AND AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND THAT LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT EVIDENCE PLAC ED BEFORE HIM AND DECIDED THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET, IF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS N O PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE . ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES THAT MAY BE FILED BEFORE HIM DURING THE 4 I.T.A. NOS.2920 / MUM/ 201 1, 1881/MU/2012, 2471/MUM/2011, 1882/MUM/2012 AND 2921/MUM/2011 COURSE OF SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO - OPERATE WITH THE LD.CIT(A) FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS. 6 . RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 7 . IN I.T.A. NOS.2920 / MUM/ 201 1, 1881/MU/2012, 1882/MUM/2012 AND 2921/MUM/2011 NUMBER OF GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF WHICH ONE GROUND IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES AND DECIDED THE APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS . 8 . SINCE ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE , WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IN ITA NO.2471/MUM/2011 RESTORING BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE APPEAL DENOVO AFTE R CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES WHICH MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, OUR DECISIONS IN ITA NO.2471/MUM/2011 WOULD MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO THESE APPEALS AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY, THESE APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE IS SUE ON MERIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 5 I.T.A. NOS.2920 / MUM/ 201 1, 1881/MU/2012, 2471/MUM/2011, 1882/MUM/2012 AND 2921/MUM/2011 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4TH APRIL , 2017 S D SD ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( RAJESH KUMAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 4.4 . 2017 SRL,SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, T RUE COP Y / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI