ITO 33(2)(5), MUMBAI V. PRASHANT KUTTY SHETTY, MUMBAI

ITA 4812/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9287 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITTAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JM) I.T.A. NO. 4812 /MUM/20 15 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 10 ) ITO 33(2)(5) 3 RD FLOOR, C - 13 ROOM NO. 310 - A BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI - 400 051. VS. SHRI PRASHANT KUTTY SHETTY 86/B, ROOM NO. 1538 MHB COLONY, SAMTANAGAR KANDIVALI EAST MUMBAI - 400 101. PAN : AMLPS1885J ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY S HRI RAJAT MITTAL DATE OF HEARING 29 . 8 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 .9 . 201 7 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 19 - 06 - 2015 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 45, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF LD CIT(A) IN GRAN TING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO (A) UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF RS.46,05,670/ - (B) MISMATCH BETWEEN AIR INFORMATION AND BOOKS RS.12,05,661/ - (C) CREDIT CARD EXPENSES RS.17,23,052/ - THE REVENUE IS ALSO OBJECTING TO THE ACTION OF LD CIT(A) IN ADMITT ING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE ACT. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSSSEE ON THE LAST OCCASION. HENCE WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, EX - PARTE, WITHOUT THE PRESENC E OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI PRASHANT KUTTY SHETTY 2 3. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY EXPLANATIONS BEFORE THE AO AND HENCE THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO MAKE THE ABOVE SAID ADDITIONS. BEFORE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE FILED A BANK ST ATEMENT IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE LD CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REPORT. HOWEVER, WE NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS BY CONSIDERING DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, WHICH WERE NOT CONFRONTED TO THE AO. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A. SINCE THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRE EXAMINATION AT THE END OF THE AO, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) AND R ESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINING THEM AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL THE INFORMATION AND EXPLANATIONS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 . 9 .201 7. SD/ - SD/ - (PAWAN SINGH ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 20 / 9 / 20 1 7 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI