PARIN A. SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3040/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2433 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P MEENADR
• Assessee Lawyers: DR K SHIVARAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3040/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10 SHRI PARIN A SHAH, 3, OMKAILASH GANAGA SOCIETY, A.DEVIDAYAL ROAD, PLOT NO.1052, MULUND (WEST), MUMBAI-400080 / VS. ITO -23(3)(1), ROOM NO.401, 4 TH FLOOR, C- 10, PRATAYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX , BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 ( /ASSESSEE) ( ! / REVENUE) PAN. NO. ABVPS5882J ITA NO.3266/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10 ITO -23(3)(1), ROOM NO.401, 4 TH FLOOR, C- 10, PRATAYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX , BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. SHRI PARIN A SHAH, 3, OMKAILASH GANAGA SOCIETY, A.DEVIDAYAL ROAD, PLOT NO.1052, MULUND (WEST), MUMBAI-400080 ( ! / REVENUE) ( /ASSESSEE) PAN. NO.ABVPS5882J / ASSESSEE BY DR. K.SHIVARAM ! / REVENUE BY SHRI O.P. MEENA-DR ' !# $ % / DATE OF HEARING : 16/11/2015 $ % / DATE OF ORDER: 23/11/2015 SHRI PARINA A SHAH ITA NO.3046 & 3266/MUM/2013 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE IS IN CROSS AP PEALS AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28/02/2013 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MUMBAI. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, DR. K. SHIVARAM, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT F URNISHED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER/COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE L D. DR, CONTENDED THAT IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADMITT ED, THE DEPARTMENT WILL NOT BE IN A POSITION TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THRO UGH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE FACTUAL MATRIX WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW, THE PRINCIPLE O F NATURAL JUSTICE, WE REMAND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE F ILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE AND AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD DECI DE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SHRI PARINA A SHAH ITA NO.3046 & 3266/MUM/2013 3 2.2. SO FAR AS, THE CROSS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE (I TA NO.3266/MUM/2013), IS CONCERNED, SINCE, THE PART RE LIEF GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO BORNE OUT OF THE SAME FACTS, THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE REMAND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER, WHO IS TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF T HE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 16/11/2015. SD/- SD/- ( AS HWANI TANEJA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' # MUMBAI; ' DATED : 23/11/2015 F| P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )*+, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / / ' 0 ( )* ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / / ' 0 / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 2!3 - , / )*% ) 4 , ' # / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 5 6# / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, .2* - //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' # / ITAT, MUMBAI.