MAGNATE MARKETING SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 9(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2615/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93243 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEELIMA V NADKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUTSADDI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2615/M/2014 (AY:2006 - 2007 ) M/S. MAGNATE MARKETING SERVICES PVT LTD., 24, 2 ND FLOOR, JAY KAY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, LINKING ROAD EXTN., SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI - 400054. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 9(2)(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 20. ./ PAN : AACCM8542N ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. MUTSADDI & RUTURAJ H GURJAR / RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEELIMA V. NADKARNI, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06.07.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .07.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.4.2014 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 20, MUMBAI DATED 16.1.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPELLATE GROUNDS OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY CONCRETE & / OR RATIONAL REBUTTAL AS ALSO WITHOUT PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS IN APPROPRIATE PERSPECTIVE AND PASSING UNWARRANTED VALUE JUDGEMENTS BASED ON SURMISES CONJECTURES AND FALLACIOUS LOGIC AND THEREBY ERRED IN: 1. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,600/ - BEING UNACCOUNTED SALES OF 17 HANDS FREE KITS WITHOUT CONSIDERI NG THE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH SUPPORT THE FACT THAT NO SUCH SALE WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR. 2. CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 2,32,200/ - BEING VALUE O F UNACCOUNTED SLAE SOF FREE SAMPLES BY HOLDING THE SUBMISSION DATED 23.12.2 013 AS FALSE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WHILE COMPARING THE SAME WITHOUT SUBMISSION DATED 25.11.2008. IN DOING SO, THE LD CIT (A) HAS COMPLETED IGNORED THE FACT THAT DURING THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, CERTAIN DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED DUE TO MISTAKE OF T HE EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY. THE SAID FACT WAS ALSO MENTIONED I STATEMENT OF FACTS AS ATTACHED TO FROM 35. HOWEVER, THE SAID FACT IS ALSO IGNORED BY THE LD CIT (A) WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER. 3. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,45,619/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVAL UATION OF CLOSING STOCK BY HOLDING THE SUBMISSIONS / WRITTEN ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS ONLY GENERAL EXPLANATIONS. 2 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE NARRATED THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOM E DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 34,960/ - AND RS. 1,64,600/ - AS BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 2,19,925/ - . IN THE ASSESSMENT, AO MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS T OTALLING TO RS. 6,13,435/ - . AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) DISMISSED THE AP PEAL. AGAIN AGGRIEVED WITH THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK - II, CONTAINING PAGES 116 TO 233, AND SUBMITTED THAT THESE PAPERS CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THEY ARE RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS. BRINGING MY ATTENTION TO PARA 4.3 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, LD COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE PAPER BOOKS FILED BEFORE HIM AND APP RECIATED THE DOCUMENTS ALREADY FILED TO HIM. BRINGING MY ATTENTION TO THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 3.7.2015 OF SHRI RAJESH A. PANDIT, THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMP ANY, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT AS PER PARA 8 OF SAID AFFIDAVIT, CIT (A) DID NOT ALLOW THE ASSESSSEE TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS. FURTHER, EXPLAINING THE DOCUMENTS, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES OF 17 PARTIES AND UNACCOUNTED ADDITION BY WAY OF UNACCOUNTED SALES OF NUMBER OF SAMPLES AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WILL BE DELETED ONCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED AND DIRECTIN G THE CIT (A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR FOR THE REVENUE, WHO DUTIFULLY RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A), I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS A NEXUS TO T HE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS. I ALSO FIND THAT THE DENIAL OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT PROPER CONSIDERING THE INTEREST OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. 3 ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE CIT (A) TO ADMIT THE SAME AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTE R GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. I ALSO FIND THE NECESSITY TO DIRECT THE CIT (A) TO ADMIT THE FURTHER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, IF ANY, SUCH AS CONFIRMATION LETTERS, BANK DETAILS ETC DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. ACCOR DINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JULY, 2015. SD/ - (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 22 .7 .2015 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI