EBRAHIM ADAM KORADIA, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 13(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4864/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4556 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K DHONDIAL J
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANINAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI , ! ' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.4864/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S EBRAHIM ADAM KORADIA, ROOM NO.5, 1 ST FLOOR, 37-41, BASAR MANZIL, GOGHARI MOHALLA, PYDHONIE, MUMBAI-400003 / VS. ITO-13(3)(4), ROOM NO.429, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400020 / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO. AFQPK3507B $ % & / ASSESSEE BY SHRI M. SUBRAMANINAN $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI A.K.DHONDIAL JCIT-DR / DATE OF HEARING 07/01/2016 & / DATE OF ORDER: 07/01/2016 & / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/03/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERTA INS TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,50,800/-. ITA NO.4864/MUM/2014 MR. EBRAHIM ADAM KORADIA 2 2. DURING HEARING, THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, IS THAT ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF BANK ACCOUNT OPENED AND OPERATED BY SOME OTHER PERSONS IN THE NA ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH PERSONS ARE UNKNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL EXPLAINED THAT THE ENTIRE CREDIT WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE FACTUAL MATRIX, A P OLICE COMPLAINT WAS LODGED ALONG WITH A COMPLAINT TO OTHE R AUTHORITIES. MY ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAGE -8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL PAPE RS WHICH COULD NOT BE FILED AS THE SAME WERE NOT AVAILABLE W ITH THE ASSESSEE DURING EARLIER PROCEEDING. ON THE OTHER HA ND, THE LD. DR, SHRI A.K. DHONDIAL, DEFENDED THE ADDITION B Y CONTENDING THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN VIGILANT AS HIS ACCOUNT/NAME WAS MISUSED BY SOME PERSONS, THUS, THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE. 2.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDER THE FACTS, NARRATED HEREINABOVE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 27 TH OCTOBER, 2015 STATING THE REASONS THEREIN, BY STATING THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN ADD ITIONAL PAPERS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL STATING THAT THE SAME C OULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS HE WAS GRAPPLING WITH A SITUATION THAT AN ACCOUNT WAS OPEN ED AND OPERATED IN HIS NAME BY SOME UNSCRUPULOUS PERSONS ITA NO.4864/MUM/2014 MR. EBRAHIM ADAM KORADIA 3 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, MEANING THEREBY, IF IT IS TRUE, THEN IT CAN BE SAID THAT FRAUD WAS COMMITTED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER FORTI FIED BY THE FACT THAT WHEN HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THESE FACTS ON 12/12/2008 (PAGE-8 OF THE PAPER BOOK) HE LODGED A COMPLAINT WITH THE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF THE POLICE A ND FURTHER COPIES TO THE HOME MINISTER, GOVT. OF INDIA , DY. CHIEF MINISTER AND HOME MINISTER OF THE STATE, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLIC E (CRIME BRANCH) AND REGIONAL HEAD (MUMBAI) OF R.B.I. AND COMPLAINT AGAINST THE BANK/OFFICERS OF THE BANK AND UNKNOWN PERSONS FOR THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY AND CHEA TING, PUNISHABLE, UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE, IN SUCH A SITU ATION IS THE BOUNDED DUTY OF THE AUTHORITIES/COURTS TO L OOK INTO THE MATTER, IF IT IS TRUE, INSTEAD OF MAKING A ADD ITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVAT ION, I REMAND THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, FILED BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL, TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, TO EXAMIN E THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. AO IS ALSO DIRECTED AS WHAT IS THE OUTCOME OF THE C OMPLAINT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12/12/2008. THE ASSESSEE I S AT LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, FOR WHICH DUE OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESS EE, THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.4864/MUM/2014 MR. EBRAHIM ADAM KORADIA 4 THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN T HE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 07/01/2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 07/01/2016 F{X~{T? P.S / ! & $ )!*+ ,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( '#$ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -./ ' , ) '#$ ' 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /2 3$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (-# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI