IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH E, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3543/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) ABHIJIT NERURKAR 16 JEEVAN APARTMENTS, KASHINATH DHURU MARG, NEAR KIRTI COLLEGE, DADAR (WEST), MUMBAI-400028. PAN: AEIPN6066P VS. ITO 21(1)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KIRESH SHIVKAR (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI V. JUSTIN (SR. DR) DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2017 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE U/S 253 OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT (THE ACT) IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI DATED 30.03.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2007-08. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR (FY) 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN ICICI BANK OF RS. 43,94,388/-, THE ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) ISSUED NOTICE DATED 20.06.2011 FOR SEEKING DETAILS OF RETU RN OF INCOME FOR AY 2007-08, 2008-09 & AY 2010-11. WHEN NO RESPONSE WA S MADE BY ASSESSEE ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 06.09.2011 WAS ISSUED THROUGH TAX INSPECTOR. IN ITA NO. 3543/M/2016- ABHIJIT NERURKAR 2 RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE DATED 06.09.2011, THE ASSESS EE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CONTENDED THAT THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE IS BEL OW THE TAXABLE LIMIT, THUS, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. THE AO ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH HIS SUBMISSION IN WRITING. NO SUCH WRITTEN EXPLANAT ION WAS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 04.02. 2012. THE ASSESSEE MADE NO RESPONSE FOR THE COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U/S 1 48 OF THE ACT. THE AO FURTHER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 20.09.2012. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN MADE NO COMPLIANCE. THE AO FURTHER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 131 TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR IN PERSON ON 08.02.2013. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY AO AND NOT FILED RETURN OF IN COME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES. THUS, THE AO IN ABSENCE OF PROPER CLARIFIC ATION AND PROPER REPLY, CLARIFICATION AND RESPONSES TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE AO PA SSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 11.03.2013 U/S 144 R.W.S. 148 AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 43,94,388/-. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE A SSESSEE REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). FURTH ER, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRE SENT APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE ORDER DATED 11 MAR CH 2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOL DING THE ACTION OF THE ITA NO. 3543/M/2016- ABHIJIT NERURKAR 3 ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADDING THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENU E AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUND NO.1 RELATES T O VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 R.W.S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE GROUND NO.1 O F THE APPEAL. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS NO OBJECTION. CONSIDERING THE C ONTENTION OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISM ISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 43,94,38 8/-. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO.2 O F THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE. PERUSAL OF THE APPLICATION REVEALS THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING A COPY OF BANK STATEMEN T OF ICICI BANK. THE BANK HAD FROZEN THE OPERATION OF BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY INFORMATION AND EXPLANATION WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO DIRECT THE AO TO PROVID E THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AND RELEVANT INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ADDITION WAS MADE. THE AO PROVIDED THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF ICICI BANK ACCOUNT. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE E XPLAINED THAT MAJORITY OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS THE DEPOSIT OF C ONSIDERATION OF SHARE ITA NO. 3543/M/2016- ABHIJIT NERURKAR 4 TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SUBMISSION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 23.11.2015. COPY OF LETTER DAT ED 20.11.2010 ISSUED BY ICICI BANK. COPY OF LETTER OF AO DATED 28.12.2015 F OR SUPPLY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ARE RELEVANT AND ESSENTIAL FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE WOULD SUFFER LOSS, IF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMITTED AND CONSIDERED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THESE EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE EVIDENCE FO R THE FIRST TIME WHICH REQUIRED VERIFICATION AT THE END OF AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES. CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND RELEVANCY OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY ASSES SEE, WE ADMIT THE APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. FURTHER, WE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS DEFENSE FOR GROUND N O.2. CONSIDERING THE RELEVANCY OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WE DEEM IT APPRO PRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO VERIFY THE FACT AND EXAM INE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE AND PASS THE ORDER AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT AO SHALL PASS THE ORDER AFTER VERIFICATION AND CONSIDERING THE ITA NO. 3543/M/2016- ABHIJIT NERURKAR 5 EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FURNI SHED BY ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE APPLICATION FOR FILING THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT IS ALLOWED RESULTANTLY, THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017. SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (PAWAN SINGH) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 30/10/2017 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/