, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.4385/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) THE NAVYUG CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, JAI HIND CLUB BLDG., 2 ND FLOOR, PLOT NO.51, N.S.ROAD NO.11, JVPD SCHEME, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI-400049. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2 1 ( 2 ) (3) , C-10, 5TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051. ( & / APPELLANT) .. ( ' & / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAAAT 0325L & / APPELLANT BY : PARVATI GANESH, REP RESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE ' & * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GANESH BARE * - / DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2013 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.12.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06 AGAINST EX-PARTE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 31.1.2011 ON FOLLOWING GR OUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER O F THE AO CHARGING TO TAX CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS AGGREGATING TO RS.8,38,000/- INCIDENTAL TO SALE OF PLOT [TRANSFER FEES] WHICH WAS EXEMPT ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY; 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO CHARGING TO TAX TDR PREMIUM OF RS.6,02,000/- WHICH WAS EXEMPT ON THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY; 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIND CO-OPERATIV E HOUSING SOCIETY V/S ITO, PUNE, 317 ITR 47 (BOM); 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES OF RS.3,93,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT T HERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE INCOME EARNED AND THE EXPENSES INCURRED; I.T.A. NO.4385/MUM/2012 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT RE PRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND THE HEARING BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND CONSEQ UENTLY REQUISITE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE HIM. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE WILL FURNISH REQUISITE DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS BEFORE HIM. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF L D. AR AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). WE OBSERVE THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAD GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REQUISITE DETAILS BUT N EEDFUL WAS NOT DONE FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, WE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, CONSIDER IT PRUDENT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUES TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERING SUCH EVIDENCES AS MAY BE PLACED BEFORE HIM BY A REASONED ORDER AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW SUBJECT TO THE COND ITION THAT ASSESSEE WILL PAY COST OF RS.5000/- TO THE DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, W E SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIM TO DECIDE THE ISSUE S AFRESH AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE RELEVA NT DETAILS AS MAY BE PLACED BEFORE HIM SUBJECT PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.5000/- BY THE AS SESSEE. WE MAY STATE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO CO-OPERATE WITH LD. CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) WILL DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.5000/-. 5. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON 10TH D ECEMBER, 2013. * 1 2 10TH DECEMBER, 2013 * SD SD ( / RAJENDRA) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & / THE APPELLANT 2. ' & / THE RESPONDENT. I.T.A. NO.4385/MUM/2012 3 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. 6 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 7 '9 , - 9 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - 9 , /ITAT, MUMBAI