PURSHOTTAM L. BHARADWAJ, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 297/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3429 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR P DANIEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 68; 263

Judgement Text

C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER , I.T.A. NO. 297 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01) MR. PURUSHOTTAM L. BHARADWAJ, C/O LUB LINKER INDIA, SUBHASH NAGAR, VILLAGE ROAD, BHANDUP (W), MUMBAI 400 078. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 23(1)(3), MUMBAI. PAN : AAAPB7492E ( ! / APPELLANT ) .. ( '#! RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY DR. P. DANIEL REVENUE BY : SHRI C.W. ANGOLKAR $ %&' ( / DATE OF HEARING : 26-10-2015 )*+, &' ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-01-2016 O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NO. 2 97/MUM/2013, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 25-06-2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 33, MUMBAI (H EREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. ITA 297/MUM /13 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) VIOLATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 250. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION MADE OF RS. 5,40,000/- BEING UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 5,00,000/- A ND TRANSFER OF RS. 40,000/- FROM PERSONAL ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION MADE OF RS. 3,20,000/- BEING THE BALANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS A/ C. 4. THE LEARNED A.O. ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE IT ACT, 1961. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE ASSESSMENT BE SET ASIDE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A DELAY OF 121 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL W HICH IS BEYOND THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER THE ACT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED APPLICATION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY I N FILING THE APPEAL. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT INADVERTENTLY THE FILE WAS RETAIN ED AT THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT AND TAX CONSULTANT OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ORDERS HAVING BEING RECEIVED ON 13-07-2012 BUT DUE TO THE TAX CONSULTAN T BUSY IN FILING OF TAX RETURNS WITH DEADLINE OF 31-07-2012 , THE APPELLATE ORDER WAS MISPLACED SOMEWHERE AT THE TAX CONSULTANT OFFICE AND COULD NO T BE TRACED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 09 TH JANUARY 2013 OF THE TAX CONSULTANT TO THIS EFFECT THAT THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FAULT OF THE TAX CONSULTANT AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN FAULT FOR SUCH DELAY IN FILING O F THE APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE FINALIZING TH E ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 2012 , THE ASSESSEE ENQUIRED FROM HI S TAX CONSULTANT ABOUT THE APPELLATE ORDER AND ON REALIZING THAT THE APPEA L WITH THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT YET BEEN FILED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL INSTANTLY BY ITA 297/MUM /13 3 APPROACHING THE LAWYER. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR , LAND ACQUI SITION V. MST. KATIJI & ORS. 167 ITR 471(SC) AND DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF N BALAKRISHNAN V. M.KRISHNAMOORTHY (AIR 1998 SC 3222) TO CONTEND THAT THE DELAY NEED TO BE CONDONED. WE FIND THAT THE DELAY O F 121 DAYS IN THE FILING OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO BE A B ONA-FIDE DELAY AS REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE IS SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE. NOW, EVIDENTLY, THE FACTUAL MATRIX, AS DELINEATED IN THE SUBMISSIONS BE FORE US EXPLAINS THE BONA- FIDES OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBVIOUSLY, THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT STAND TO GAIN BY INTENTIONALLY DELAYING THE FILING OF HIS APPEAL WIT H THE TRIBUNAL. MOREOVER, NO MALA-FIDE INTENTION CAN BE ASCRIBED TO THE ASSESSEE , IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, FOR DELAYING THE FILING OF THE APPEAL WITH THE TRIB UNAL. THE LD. D.R. ALSO DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION, HENCE WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 121 DAYS IN FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S SAI OM PETRO SPECIALTIES ENGAGED IN THE TRADING IN OILS AND M/S SHIVA ROADLINES DOING BUSINESS AS TRANSPORTER A ND FLEET OWNERS. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT , 196 1(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) COMPUTING INCOME AT RS.5,89,150/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.5,45,030/- , VIDE ORDERS DATED 31-03-2003 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT) INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AN D HELD VIDE ORDERS DATED 14-3-2005 THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 31-3-2003 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE WHICH WAS SET ASIDE BY THE CIT WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO PASS FRES H ORDERS DE-NOVO AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE A.O. IN COMPLIANCE OF ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE ITA 297/MUM /13 4 CIT, FRAMED FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF TH E ACT VIDE ORDERS DATED 28-02-2006 WHEREBY THE A.O., INTER ALIA, MADE THE F OLLOWING ADDITIONS:- (I) ADDITION OF RS. 10,40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL I NTRODUCED IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S SAI OM PETRO SPECIALTIES AG AINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANA TION AND ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT. (II) ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 3,20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BA LANCE PAYABLE TO M/S INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE SERVICES WHICH IS IN RESPE CT TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF FACTORY SHED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THE ADDI TION WAS MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH-CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) W HEREBY THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,40,000/-. SIMILARLY, THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 3,20,000/- WAS ALSO DELETED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDERS DATED 05-12- 2006. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) DATED 05-12-2006, THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1460/MUM/2007 WHICH WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDERS DATED 16-4-2009 WHEREBY TH E TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE A.O. TO VERIFY THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE RECEIPT OF LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS FROM M/S KISHORE TRADING CO., RECEIPT OF RS. 40,000/- AND ALSO RS. 3,20,000/- PAYABLE TO INDUST RIAL CORPORATE SERVICES AND PASS AN ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES P LACED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE A.O. VIDE ORDERS U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT DATED 28-12-2010 PASSE D AN ORDER IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE AO, I NTER ALIA, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, INTER-ALIA, ON ALL THE THREE ABOVE ACCOUN TS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE AO DATED 28-12-2010, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILE D APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS ADJUDICATED VIDE ORDERS DATED 25-6-2012 W HEREBY THE CIT(A) HELD THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS. 3,20,000/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION FROM INDUSTRIAL CORP ORATE SERVICES FOR THE JOB DONE BY THEM I.E. ERECTING FACTORY SHED AT WADA ALO NG WITH BILL NO. 11 DATED ITA 297/MUM /13 5 9-12-1999. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT ALL PAYMENTS ARE S HOWN IN CASH AND THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN APPARENTLY BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT BEAR ANY PAN NO. OF INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE SERVICE AND HENCE TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITIONS VIDE ORDERS DATE D 25-06-2012. WITH RESPECT TO THE UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN FROM KISHO RE TRADING CO., IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/- RECEIVED BY CHEQUE ON 27-1-2000 WHEREAS THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03-2000 WHICH SHOWS THE SUNDRY CREDITORS AT RS. 1,16,34,152/- AND THE SCHEDULE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES SHOWS THE AMOUNT OUT STANDING IN THE NAME KISHORE TRADING CO. OF RS. 30,00,000/- AND FOR THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH SARASWAT CO -OPERATIVE BANK, CHEMBUR BRANCH SHOWING THE AMOUNT OF LOAN RECEIVED FROM KISHORE TRADING CO. OF RS. 5 LACS WHICH HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AMOUNT OF LOAN GIVEN BY KISHORE TRADING CO. HAVING RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AND TREATED ALSO AS U NSECURED LOAN WHICH IS EMBEDDED IN OUTSTANDING AMOUNT DUE TO KISHORE TRADI NG COMPANY AS ON 31- 3-2000 OF RS. 30,00,000/- CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN ABSENCE OF ANY ENQUIRY CONDUCTED IN THE CASE TO PRO VE IT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THIS FIGURE OF RS5,00,000/- BEING LOAN RECE IVED FROM M/S KISHORE TRADING COMPANY WAS INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE OF RS.8, 20,000/- BEING ADDITION MADE BY THE REVENUE AND THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000 /- WAS THEREFORE DELETED BY THE CIT(A) , WHILE THERE WAS A SEPARATE ADDITIO N OF RS.10,40,000/- , WHICH ALSO INCLUDED ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- STATED TO B E RECEIVED FROM KISHORE TRADING COMPANY AGAINST WHICH NO EXPLANATION WAS SU BMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDE RS DATED 25-06-2012. ITA 297/MUM /13 6 SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATI ON WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- WHICH ADDITION WAS AGAIN SUSTAINED B Y THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDERS DATED 25-06-2012 . 5.AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) DATED 25-06 -2012 , THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS FROM KISHORE TRADI NG CO. ON 27-01-2000 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION FROM M/S KISHORE TRADING COMPANY CONFIRMING RECEIPT OF LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. KISHORE TRADING COMPANY ON 27-01-2000 ALONG WI TH THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS THE INTIMATION U/S 143(1)(A) O F THE ACT AND COPIES OF P&L ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE SAID M/S KISHORE T RADING CO. FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31-03-2000 , WHICH ALL ARE PLACED IN THE PAP ER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED HIS BANK STATEMEN T WHEREBY CREDIT OF RS. 5 LACS IS APPEARING ON 27-01-2000 TO CONTEND THAT THE LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- HAS BEEN DULY RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT RS.5 LACS RECEIVED FROM KISHORE TRADING COMPAN Y IS ADDED TWICE BY THE REVENUE, ONCE IN THE ADDITION OF RS.8,20,000/- AND AGAIN WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF RS.10,40,000/- BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSE SSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 40,000/-WHICH WAS INTRODUCED AS CA PITAL IN HIS CONCERN SAI OM PETRO SPECIALITIES IS IN FACT RECEIPT OF RS. 40, 000/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON DECEMBER, 1999 FOR WHICH THE BANK STATEMENT IS PLACED AT PAGE 27 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID RECEIPT OF RS.40,000/- IS N URSERY INCOME AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND RS.40,000/- WAS DULY INCLUDED IN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,32,900/- DECLARED AND DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE REVENUE. SIMILARLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS. 3,20,000/- PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO INDUST RIAL CORPORATE SERVICES, ITA 297/MUM /13 7 THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT IS PAYABLE TO IND USTRIAL CORPORATE SERVICES TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHED AT WADA. THE ASSE SSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF INVOICES OF INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE SERVIC ES ALONG WITH LETTER OF CONFIRMATION . 7. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED RS. 5 LACS FROM KISHORE TRADING CO. ON 27-1-2000 THROUGH BANKING CH ANNEL FOR WHICH THE APPROPRIATE RELIEF IS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WHEREBY T HE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE AM OUNT OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,20,000/- MADE BY THE REVENUE IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DERS DATED 28-12-2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT RS. 5 LACS RECEIVED FROM KISHORE TRADING CO., IS IN FACT THE SAME AMOUNT AND THE DOUBLE ADDI TION IS MADE BY THE AO ON HIS ORDERS DATED 28-12-2010, ONCE IN THE ADDITION O F RS.8,20,000/- MADE BY THE REVENUE WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE OR DERS DATED 25.06.2012 AND AGAIN WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF RS.10,40,000/- B Y THE REVENUE WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT S UBMITTED SUCH EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAS MA DE THIS EXPLANATION FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THE EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSES SEE THAT RS. 5 LACS RECEIVED FROM KISHORE TRADING COMPANY IS THE SAME A MOUNT AS INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,20,000/- AND ALSO I N THE ADDITION OF RS.10,40,000/- BY THE REVENUE NEEDS VERIFICATION O F FACTS BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE F ILE OF A.O. FOR VERIFICATION THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS.5,00,000/- BEING LOAN RECE IVED FROM KISHORE TRADING COMPANY IS THE ONLY LOAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE O N 27-01-2000 DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR FROM SAID KISHORE TRADING COMPANY WHI CH WAS INCLUDED IN THE ITA 297/MUM /13 8 ADDITIONS OF RS.8,20,000/- MADE BY THE REVENUE FOR WHICH APPROPRIATE RELIEF WAS GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND THERE IS NO OTHER LOA N OF RS.5,00,000/- RECEIVED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM M/S KISHORE TRADING COMPANY WHICH IS ADDED IN THE ADDITION OF INCOME OF RS.10,40,000/- MADE BY THE REVENUE AND TO SATISFY THE MANDATE OF SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO SHALL GRANT PROPER OPPORTUNITY O F HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN COMPLIANCE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. SIMILARLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,0 00/-, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN THE FIGUR E OF RS. 10,40,000/- OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 40 ,000/- REPRESENT THE NURSERY INCOME WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE AGRICULTURA L INCOME OF RS.1,32,900/- DULY DECLARED AND DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY SUC H EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THIS EXPLANATION IS SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME. THUS, THIS FACT ALSO NEEDS V ERIFICATION BY THE A.O. AND HENCE THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF A .O. FOR VERIFICATION TO SATISFY THE MANDATE OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT.. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO SHALL GRANT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW IN COMPLIANCE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.WE ORDE R ACCORDINGLY. THE THIRD ADDITION IS WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,20,000/- WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE OF ADDITION OF AMOUNT OF RS. 8,20,000/- . THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS.3,20,000/- IS PAYA BLE TO INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE SERVICES TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF INDUSTRI AL SHED FOR WHICH NECESSARY INVOICES HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ALONG WITH LE TTER OF CONFIRMATION. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE LETTER OF CONFIRMATION IS NO T SIGNED BY THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE SERVICES AND ALSO NO PAN DETAILS OF THE S AID CONCERN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE SERVICES WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE , EVEN BEFORE US. THE SAID ITA 297/MUM /13 9 LETTER OF CONFIRMATION HAS NOT BEEN EMANATING FROM THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATE SERVICES RATHER IS AN EXTRACT OF ACCOUNTS OF THE AS SESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE PAYMENT OF RS.80,000/- MADE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN THE SAID CONFIRMATION ARE ALL PAID IN CASH AS PER DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE US. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THESE EVIDENCES AGAIN REQUIRED VERIFICATION BY THE A.O., HENCE THIS ISSUE ALSO NEED TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE F ILE OF A.O. FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION TO SATISFY THE MANDATE OF SECTION 68 O F THE ACT. . NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE AO SHALL GRANT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN COMPLIANCE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JANUARY, 2016. &)*+, -$ . 19-01-2016 *&/% SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (RAMIT KOCHAR) 0123435678798: 544;1<=5<=78798: >% MUMBAI ; -$ DATED 19/01/2016 [ $ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '#! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ?' @ A / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. ?' / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. BC /''$DE (DE , >% / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI H BENCH 6. / FGH % GUARD FILE. ! ( / BY ORDER, # B''' //TRUE COPY// )/(* + ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , >% / ITAT, MUMBAI