RAJ DOSHI EXPORTS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4792/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9939 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Loose papers; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/ SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SANDEEP GOSAIN (JM) I.T.A. NO. 4792 /MUM/20 16 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06 - 07 ) I.T.A. NO. 479 3 /MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 ) I.T.A. NO. 4794 /MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT Y EAR 200 8 - 0 9 ) I.T.A. NO. 479 7 /MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0) I.T.A. NO. 479 5 /MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 ) M/S. RAJ DOSHI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. DAULAT BHUVAN, GR. FLOOR 407, KALBADEVI ROAD MUMBAI - 400 002. VS. DCIT, CC - 8(4) 6 TH FLOOR, R.NO. 658 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) I.T.A. NO. 4885/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07) I.T.A. NO. 4886/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11) DCIT, CC - 8(4) 6 TH FLOOR, R.NO. 658 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. VS. M/S. RAJ DOSHI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. DAULAT BHUVAN, GR. FLOOR 407, KALBADEVI ROAD MUMBAI - 400 002. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO .AAACR7411F ASSESSEE BY SHRI SHAILESH PARMAR & SHRI PRATEEK JAIN DEPARTMENT BY MS. S. PANDMJA DATE OF HEARING 13 .7 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13 . 7 . 201 7 O R D E R PER BENCH : - THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE RELATED TO A.YS. 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO A.YS. 2006 - 07 & 2010 - 11. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 31.3.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) - 50, MUMBAI. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. M/S. RAJ DOSHI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 2 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGA GED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS DISPUTED IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 26.5.2011. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER EXPLANATIONS WITH REGARD TO NOTING MADE IN THE DOCUMENT AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES FOUND IN THE DOCUMENT S. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT A DOCUMENT CONTAINING HEADING AS ASHTAVINAYAK MANAGEMENT SERVICES , WHICH IS A SECURITY AGENCY ENGAGED BY M/S. DAULATBHAVAN TENANT ASSOCIATION , WAS THE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITIONS IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . BEFORE LD CIT(A), T HE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT DOES NOT BELONG TO IT AND IT MAY BELONG TO THE ASHTAVINAYAK MANAGEMENT SERVICES . IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH ASHTAVINAYAK MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN LEFT AT TH E PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE BY SOME AGENT OF THAT COMPANY. HOWEVER, THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF ASHTAVINAYAK MANAGEMENT SERVICES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE LD CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE FACTS. 3. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO SOME OTHER DOCUMEN TS WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE DUMB DOCUMENT S AND ACCORDINGLY GRANTED RELIEF IN RESPECT OF ONE ADDITION MADE IN A.Y. 2006 - 07 AND ANOTHER ADDITION MADE IN A.Y. 2010 - 11. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL S CHALLENGING THE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 4. LEARNED AR FURNISHED AN APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE BENCH FOR ADMITTING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO COLLECT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO M/S ASHTAVINAYAK MANAG EMENT SERVICES IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS M/S. RAJ DOSHI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 3 NO T CONNECTED TO ABOVE SAID AGENCY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WOULD GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND ACCORDINGLY PRAYED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED. 5 . LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT OBJECT TO ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S . HOWEVER, SHE SUBMITTED THAT THESE EVIDENCES REQUIRE EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THESE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE S , AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY LD CIT - DR, REQUIRE EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SINCE THEY GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, WE PREFER TO RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THEM AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE S CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND RESTORE THEM TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINI NG THEM AFRESH. 6 . IN RESPECT OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE LEARNED CIT - DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION S AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY HIM WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY TYPE OF EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT - DR SUBMITTED THAT THE EX PLANATION S AND DOCUMENT S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WOULD REQUIRE EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7 . WE HEARD LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE , WHO SUBMITTED THAT THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) PERTAIN TO ADDI TION MADE ON THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENTS AND HENCE THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THOSE ISSUES SHOULD BE UPHELD. M/S. RAJ DOSHI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 4 8 . HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE ALSO NEED TO BE SET ASI DE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE EXPLANATION S AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON ISSUES CONT ESTED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND RESTORE THEM TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINING THEM AFRESH. 9. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE E N PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 .7 .201 7. SD/ - SD/ - (SAN DEEP GOSAIN ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 13 / 7 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE R ESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI