The DCIT, Circle-2, Range-2, Ahmedabad V. Shri Mahendra Prabhudas Bajaj, Ahmedabad

ITA 2840/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72927 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEW
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DY CIT, CIR-2, RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS MAHENDRA PRABHUDAS BAJAJ, PROP. M/S. HARRA NO. 47, TELIA MILL COMPOUND, O/S PREM DARWAJA, AHMEDABAD PAN: AARPB8209M (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI K.C. MATHEW, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 29-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-01-20 14 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-VII AHMEDABAD DATED 04-08-2010. ITA NO. 2840/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.T.A NO.2840/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO DCIT VS. MAHENDRA PRABHUDAS BAJAJ., PROP M/S HARRA 2 2. REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. C|T(A) ERRED IN LAW BY ADMITTING ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (A) AND (B) OF SUB RULE (3) OF RULE 46 A OF THE IT RULES 1962 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS.2,17,94,080/-MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DI SALLOWING THE DISCOUNT EXPENSES. 3. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN, DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,56,401/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DIS ALLOWING COMMISSION EXPENSES. 4. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLO WING EXPENDITURE OF RS. 62,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSES SEE TOWARDS REGISTRATION EXPENSES BUT HAD BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN GROUPED UNDER LEGAL EXPENSES. 3. FIRST GROUND RELATES TO VIOLATION ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES A PPEAL, LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTU NITY TO THE AO AS PER CLAUSE (A) & (B) OF SUB-CLAUSE (3) OF RULE 46A OF T HE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. WE THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUST ICE AND FAIR PLAY RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATIO N. THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE FREE TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM. I.T.A NO.2840/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO DCIT VS. MAHENDRA PRABHUDAS BAJAJ., PROP M/S HARRA 3 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 30/01/2014 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,