GAURAV P. MODY, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 15(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3775/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83546 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

G IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI H.L. KARWA, HONBLE PRESIDENT AND N.K . BILLAIYA, AM .. , . . , ./ I.T.A. NO.3775 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-2010 MR. GAURAV P. MODY, 1701/1702, SILVER OAK BUILDING, RAHEJA WILLOWS, AKRULI ROAD, KANDIVALI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 101. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 15(3)(3), MUMBAI. ' ./ PAN : AKSPMO686Q ( '# / APPELLANT ) .. ( $%'# / RESPONDENT ) A PPELLANT BY SHRI GOVIND JAVERI R E SPONDENT BY : SMT. PARMINDER & ' ( )* / DATE OF HEARING : 20-08-2014 +,-. ( )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-08-2014 [ / / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, A.M . : . . , THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- 26, MUMBAI DATED 25-03-2013 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009 -10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM DURI NG THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ITA 3775/M/13 2 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U /S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH T HE NOTICES OF THE A.O. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID FILE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS. THOSE WERE TRANSMITTED TO THE A.O. BY THE LD. CIT(A) CALL ING FOR THE REMAND REPORT. THE A.O. SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER DA TED 11-3-2013. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT HE APPEARED BEFORE TH E A.O. ON 20-3-2013, 22-3-2013 AND 25-3-2013 BUT THE A.O. NEVER INFORMED HIM THAT HE HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT ON 13-3-2013. TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT EVEN THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS NOT SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE BY T HE LD. CIT(A). CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LIGH T OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ISSUE NEED S TO BE RE-ADJUDICATED AFRESH BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE RESTORE THI S ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCES AFRESH AND ALSO FURNISH A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH AUGUST, 2014. / ( +,-. & 0 1 2 3 20-8-2014 , ( 4' SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (N.K. BILLAIYA ) /PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ' MUMBAI ; 2 DATED 19-8-2014 ITA 3775/M/13 3 [ .=../ R.K. , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%'# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & >) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 26, MUMBAI 4. & >) / CIT- 15, MUMBAI 5. AB4 $=)=CD , * CD. , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI G BENCH 6. 4E F' / GUARD FILE. ! ( / BY ORDER, %A) $=) //TRUE COPY// )/(* + ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI