, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5069/MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2006-07) SHRI NIRPALSINGH RAGHBIRSINGH MUNDRA FLAT NO.101, H-WING MAYURESH SHRISTI BLD. NO.2 OPP. ASIAN PAINTS LBS MARG, BHANDUP(W) MUMBAI-400 078. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(3)(1) 4 TH FLR, C-10 PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (E) MUMBAI-400 051. ( ! / // / APPELLANT) ( '# ! / RESPONDENT) P.A. NO.AJHPM 7095 F ! $ % $ % $ % $ % /APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAHUL K. HAKANI '# ! $ % $ % $ % $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIVEK BATRA $ &'( / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2014 )*+ $ &'( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .10.2014 ,- ,- ,- ,- / / / / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JM) : THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 25/3/2013 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON V ARIOUS GROUNDS. THE FOREMOST GROUND ARGUED BEFORE US THAT REASONABLE OP PORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE THUS, THERE IS A VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL ITA NO.5069/MUM/2013 2 JUSTICE AND NON-ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES C AUSING VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES. 2. DURING HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAHUL K. HAKANI ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE IDENTICAL T O THE GROUNDS RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SHRI VIVEK BAT RA DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND RESELLING OF MACHINERY, DECLARED INCOME OF RS.4,28,445/- IN ITS RETURN FILED ON 30/10/2006. V ARIOUS NOTICES WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED TH E ASSESSMENT ON 26/6/2008 AND FILED SOME DETAILS VIDE LETTER DATED 23/6/2008. AS PER THE REVENUE SINCE ON LATER DATE THE ASSESSEE DID NO T APPEAR, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. IT I S NOTED THAT DURING FIRST APPELLATE STAGE THE ASSESSEE FILED EVIDENCES SUCH AS P&L ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET, LOAN CONFIRMATION, COPY OF AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT AND INVOIC ES TOWARDS PURCHASE OF COMPUTER ETC. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CO NSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM AS THE SAME WERE NOT FILE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS EXPECTED TO CALL A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER . WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATUR AL JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD , THEREFORE, WE ITA NO.5069/MUM/2013 3 REMAND THIS FILE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRES H ADJUDICATION ON MERIT FOR WHICH DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE . WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCES, IF ANY, IN SU PPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES ONLY. 4. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION O F THE HEARING ON 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014 . ,- $ )*+ .,/ 30.10.2014 * $ 6 SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ( ,7 ( ,7 ( ,7 ( ,7 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ,7 ,7 ,7 ,7 / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; ., DATED : 30 TH OCT. 2014. ../ JV, SR.PS . ,- $ '&8 98+& ,- $ '&8 98+& ,- $ '&8 98+& ,- $ '&8 98+&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. '# ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. : / CIT(A)-13, MUMBAI 5. 8=6 '& , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6> ? / GUARD FILE. ,- ,- ,- ,- / BY ORDER, #8& '& //TRUE COPY// @ @@ @/ // /A B A B A B A B (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI