MAYA RASAYAN LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 6(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3322/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1749 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A L SHARMA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I.P.BANSAL,JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3321/MUM/2011(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.3322/MUM/2011(A.Y. 2006-07) MAYA RASAYAN LIMITED, 123/124, HEMA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, JOGESHWARI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 060. PAN: AAACM 2666D (APPELLANT) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(3)(3), AAYKAR BHAVAN, 5 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 20 (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.L.SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHIT JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 07/03/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 7/03/2013 ORDER PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT A NO.3322/MUM/2011 IS A QUANTUM APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY L D. CIT(A)-12, MUMBAI DATED 3/1/2011 AND ITA NO.3321/MUM/2011 IS AN APPE AL AGAINST LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY AND IT IS ALSO DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DATED 13/1/2011. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH THE APP EALS READ AS UNDER: GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3322/MUM/2011: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,99,121/- U/S. 69 OF I.T. ACT,1961 AS UNPROVED PURCHASES. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE HER ON THE GROUND THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND THAT THEY DO NOT HELP THE APPELLANTS CAS E. ITA NO. 3321/MUM/2011(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.3322/MUM/2011(A.Y. 2007-08) 2 3. THE APPELLANTS SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS .10,99,121/- NEEDS TO BE DELETED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.3321/MUM/2011: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW THE L EARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.1,57,687/- 271(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT,1961. 2. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE PENALTY U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF I.T. ACT 1961 NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 2. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THE QU ANTUM APPEAL IT WAS PLEADED BY LD. AR THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADDITI ONAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH INCLUDED AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE FACTUM OF G ENUINENESS OF PURCHASE WAS SOUGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED. HE SUBMITTED THAT LD.C IT(A) HAS REJECTED THE SAME AS HAVING NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. LD. A.R SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE EITHER LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO AD MIT THE EVIDENCE AND RE- ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OR THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTOR ED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO SUPPORTS ITS CASE REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE PURC HASES. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AT N IL AND A SUM OF RS.10,99,121/- WAS ADDED ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED PU RCHASES UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AS ACCORDING TO AO PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT VERIFIABLE FROM THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEED INGS ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO FURNISH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE PURCHASES AND LD. CIT(A) HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT THE SAME. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL SERVE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING AND ALSO PLACING EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND AFTER GIVING SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ITA NO. 3321/MUM/2011(A.Y. 2006-07) ITA NO.3322/MUM/2011(A.Y. 2007-08) 3 DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, THE QUANTUM APPEAL IS CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. NOW COMING TO APPEAL RELATING TO CONCEALMENT PENALTY, AS WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE QUANTUM APPEAL TO THE FILE OF AO, WE ALSO SET ASIDE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND RESTORE THE SAME TO THE FILE OF AO WITH DIRECTION TO RE- ADJUDICATE THE SAME AS PER LAW AFTER DECIDING QUAN TUM PROCEEDINGS. THIS APPEAL IS ALSO TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH E 7 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013 SD/- SD/- (N.K.BILLAIYA ) (I.P.BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 7 TH MARCH .2013 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.R B BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM.