DCIT- CC- 2(4), MUMBAI V. SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2707/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0327 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITANYA ANJARIYA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Search and seizure; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM & HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 2707/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) DCIT CC - 2(4 ) OLD CGO BUILDING, 8 TH FLOOR, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 / VS. SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. 26/A, NEW SURYA KIRAN, CO - OP HSG. SOCIETY, HUGES ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 026 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. A A FPS1984E ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHAITANYA ANJARIYA, DR / RESPONDENTBY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 16/11 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/11/2018 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER : 1. THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [AY] 2010 - 11 ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE 2 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 48 [CI T(A)], MUMBAI DATED 28.01.16 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW: - I)ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,86,03,8411 - ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VII), BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE B Y DISALLOWING EXPENSES BASED ON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ESTIMATED TOTAL INCOME OR NET PROFIT (N.P.) OF THE ASSESSEE BY REJECTING BOOK RESULTS AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AGAINST G.P. WAS MADE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BY SUBMITTING PRIMARY DETAILS TO SHOW THAT THE SAID BAD DEBTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE TURNOVER OF PREVIOUS YEARS, NAME, ADDRESS AND COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF PARTIES WHOSE DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF.' (II) 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.62,49,6881 - IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS, BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIM ATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY DISALLOWING EXPENSES BASED ON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ESTIMATED TOTAL INCOME OR NET PROFIT (N.P.) OF THE ASSESSEE BY REJECT ING BOOK RESULTS AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AGAINST G.P. WAS MADE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM.' 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, TO AMEND AND/ OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEA L, IF NEED TO BE. 3. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT ON THE GROUNDS STATED ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 48, MUMBAI MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT IS NOTICED THAT NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE / RESPONDENT IN SPITE OF SEVERAL CALLS AND EVEN NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED. FROM THE PERUSAL OF COURT FILE, WE NOTICED THAT NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN ON EARLIER DATES. ON THE OTHER HAND L D. DR IS PRESENT IN THE C OURT AND IS READY WITH ARGUMENTS. THEREFORE WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING OF THE CASE EX - PA RTE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE L D. DR AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 4 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. 3. AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S. 132 (1) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23/02/2010. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED ELECTRONICALLY (E - FILED) ON 27/09/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,71,59,475/ - . THE REAFTER, THE CASE WAS SE LECTED FOR SCRU TINY, AND AFTER SERVING STATUTORY NOTICES AND SEEKING REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) OF THE ACT ON 28/03/2013. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AF TER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE GROUNDS. GROUND NO. 1 . 5 . THIS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,86,03,8411 - ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS U/S.36(1)(VII) OF I.T. ACT. 5 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. 6 . LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,86,03,8411 - ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS U/S. 36(1)(VII), BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY DISALLOWING EXPENSES BASED ON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD NOT ESTIMATED TOTAL INCOME OR N ET PROFIT (N.P.) OF THE ASSESSEE BY REJECTING BOOK RESULTS AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AGAINST G.P. WAS MADE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BY SUBMITTING PRIMARY DETAILS TO SHOW THAT THE SAID BAD DEBTS WERE INCLUDED IN THE TURNOVER OF PREVIOUS YEARS, NAME, ADDRESS AND COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF PARTIES WHOSE DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AU THORITIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN HIS DECISION AT P ARA NO. 20 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 6 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. 20. GROUND NOS. 35 &36: 35. ON THE GIVEN FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS; LD. AO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 7,86,03,841/ - BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS U/S 36(1)(VII). SUCH ADDITION IS BAD IN LAW AND ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 36. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, ON THE GIVEN FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS; LD. AO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 7,86,03,841/ - BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS U/S 36(1)(VII). SUCH ADDITION IS BAD IN LAW AND ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 20.1 THIS ADDITION IS DISCUSSED IN PARA 17.1 TO 17.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH PERTAIN TO CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AMOUNTING TO RS.7,86,03,8411 - . THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE LIST OF DEBTORS AND WHERE THE SALES WERE MADE TO THEM. 20.2 BEFORE ME, THE APPELL ANT STATED THAT THE AO WAS NOT RIGHT IN MAKING THE ADDITION IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ADDITION TO GROSS PROFIT ON ESTIMATED BASIS HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY AO IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE CONSIDER ED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SINCE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF 7 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. ACCOUNTS, NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY DISALLOWING EXPENSES BASED ON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE AFOREMENTI ONE D ORDERS, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A ) HAD RELIED UPON THE DISCUSSION MADE IN PARA NO. 17.1 TO 17.5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH PERTAINS TO CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AND THEREFORE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DETAILED ORDER PASSE D BY THE AO, WE FIND THAT THE AO MADE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING LIST OF DEBTORS AND WHERE THE SALE WERE MADE TO THEM. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , THEN NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY DISALLOWING EXPENSES BASED ON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN OUR VIEW, THIS CONCLUSION DRAWN BY LD. CIT(A) IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY DOCUME NTARY RECORD . THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER REGARDING CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS , BUT NO DETAILS OR PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN THEREIN IN ANY SUCH JUDICIAL 8 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. PRONOUNCEMENTS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PAD MASUNDARA RAO DECD. & ORS. VRS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. (2002)255 ITR 147, WHEREIN IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL FLEXIBILITY, ONE ADDITIONAL FACT OR DIFFERENT FACT MAY MAKE A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONCLUSION IN TWO CASES. THEREFORE, COURTS SHOULD NOT PLACE RELIANCE ON DECISIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSING AS TO HOW THE FACTUAL SITUATION FITS IN WITH THE FACT SITUATION OF THE DECISION ON WHIC H RELIANCE IS PLACED. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT AT PARA NO. 9 OF THE DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: - COURTS S HOULD NOT PLACE RELIANCE ON DECISIONS WITHOUT DISCUSSING AS TO HOW THE FACTUAL SITUATION FITS IN WITH THE FACT SITUATION OF THE DECISION ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED. THERE IS ALWAYS PERIL IN TREATING THE WORDS OF A SPEECH OR JUDGMENT AS THOUGH THEY ARE WOR DS IN A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT, AND IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT JUDICIAL UTTERANCES ARE MADE IN THE SETTING OF THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE, SAID LORD MORRIS IN HERRINGTON VRS. BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (1972) 2 WLR 537 (HL). CIRCUMSTANTIAL FLEXIBILITY, ONE ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT FACT MAY MAKE A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONCLUSIONS IN TWO CASES. 9 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHILE DRAW ING STRENGTH FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KAPURCHAND SHRIMAL VRS. CIT ( 1981 ) 131 (ITR) PAGE 451 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT T HE DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT END WITH MAKING A DECLARATION THAT THE ASSESSMENTS ARE ILLEGAL AND IT IS DUTY BOUND TO ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTIONS. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS THE JURISDICT ION AS WELL AS THE DUTY TO CORRECT ALL ERRORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER APPEAL AND TO ISSUE, IF NECESSARY, APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE AUTHORITY AGAINST WHOSE DECISION THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED TO DISPOSE OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE MATTER AFRESH UNLESS FORBIDDEN FROM DOING SO BY THE STATUTE AND T HE STATUTE DOES NOT SAY THAT SUCH DIRECTION CANNOT BE ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN A CASE OF THIS NATURE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, CONSIDERING TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS AFRESH ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND TO CLERALY POINT OUT SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS ON THE FILE AND JUDGMENT IF , SO RELIED UPON WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. IT IS NEEDLESS H ERE TO MENTION THAT BEFORE 10 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. P ASSING THE ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR DECISION TO RESTORE THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) SHALL IN NO WAY BE CO NSTRUED AS HAVING ANY REFLECTION OR EXPRESSION ON THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE, WHICH SHALL BE ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) INDEPENDENTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. GROUND NO. 2 . 8 . TH IS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE RELATES TO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A) IN DELETING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.62,49,6881 - IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS . 9 . LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.62,49,6881 - IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS, BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY DISALLOWING EXPENSES BASED ON 11 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD NOT ESTIMATED TOTAL INCOME OR NET PROFIT (N.P.) OF THE ASSESSEE BY REJECTING BOOK RESULTS AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AGAINST G.P. WAS MADE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH D ETAILS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN HIS DECISION AT PARA NO. 22 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 22. GROUND NOS. 39 & 40: 39. ON THE GIVEN FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS; LD. AO ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON ADDITIONS TO FIXED ASSETS. SUCH ADDITION IS BAD IN LAW AND ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 40. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, ON THE GIVEN FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS; LD. AO ERRED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON 12 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. ADDITIONS TO FIXED ASSETS. SUCH ADDITION IS EXCESSIVE A ND LIABLE TO BE REDUCED. 22.1 THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BEFORE HIM BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, VOUCHERS AND DETAILS OF FIXED ASSETS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME REMAINED TO BE VERIFIED. THE AO, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RES PECT OF THE DEPRECIATION ON THE ADDITION TO FIXED ASSETS AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.62,49,688/ - . 22.2 BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THE AO WAS NOT RIGHT IN MAKING THE ADDITION IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE FACT TH AT ADDITION TO GROSS PROFIT ON ESTIMATED BASIS HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY AO IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT ORDER. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SINCE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY DIS ALLOWING EXPENSES BASED ON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THESE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DETAILED ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, WE FIND THAT THE AO MADE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, VOUCHERS AND DETAILS OF FIXED ASSETS AND THEREFORE, 13 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. THE SAME R EMAINED TO BE VERIFIED AND HENCE REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DEPRECIATION ON THE ADDITION TO FIX ASSETS. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TH EN NO SEPARATE ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY DISALLOWING EXPENSES BASED ON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN OUR VIEW, THIS CONCLUSION DRAWN BY LD. CIT(A) IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OR WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY DOCUMENTARY RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH HAS MENTIONED IN HI S ORDER REGARDING CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, BUT NO DETAILS OR PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN THEREIN IN ANY SUCH JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. IN THIS RESPECT, WE DRAW STRENGTH FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KAPURCHAND SHRIMAL VRS. CIT ( 1981 ) 131 (ITR) PAGE 451 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT T HE DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT END WITH MAKING A DECLARATION THAT THE ASSESSMENTS ARE ILLEGAL AND IT IS DUTY BOUND TO ISSUE FURTHER DIRECTIONS. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS THE JURISDICT ION AS WELL AS THE DUTY TO CORRECT ALL ERRORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER APPEAL AND TO ISSUE, IF NECESSARY, APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS TO THE AUTHORITY AGAINST WHOSE DECISION THE APPEAL IS PREFERRED TO DISPOSE OF THE 14 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE MATTER AFRESH UNLESS FORBIDDEN FROM DOING SO BY THE STATUTE AND T HE STATUTE DOES NOT SAY THAT SUCH DIRECTION CANNOT BE ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN A CASE OF THIS NATURE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, CONSIDERING TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A) AND REMIT THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS AFRESH ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND TO CLERALY POINT OUT SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS ON THE FILE AND JUDGMENT IF, SO RELIED UPON WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. IT IS NEE DLESS HERE TO MENTION THAT BEFORE P ASSING THE ORDER, THE LD. CIT (A) SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY MAKE IT CLEAR THAT OUR DECISION TO RESTORE THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) SHALL IN NO W AY BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING ANY REFLECTION OR EXPRESSION ON THE MERITS OF THE DISPUTE, WHICH SHALL BE ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) INDEPENDENTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 15 I.T.A. NO. 2707 /MUM/201 6 ) SHRUTI ART PVT. LTD. 11 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH NOV 2018. SD/ - SD/ - ( R. C. SHARMA ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 19 . 11 .201 8 SR.PS . DHANANJAY / 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 I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI