JAVED DAWOOD KAZI, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 17(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5084/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1426 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SONGATE
• Assessee Lawyers: S P MITHANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI SMC BENCH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, AM I.T.A.NO.5084/MUM/2009 - A.Y 2006-07 MR. JAVED DAWOOD KAZI, SHOP NO.18, HASNABAD SOCIETY, 104/30, DR. MASCARENHAS ROAD, MAZGAON, MUMBAI 400 010, PAN NO.AIBPK 2340 Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.P.MITHANI. REVENUE BY : SHRI D.SONGATE. O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST C IT[A] S ORDER DATED 15/7/2009 FOR THE A.Y 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL VARIOUS GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, I FIND THAT AO HAD RECEIVED CERTA IN INFORMATION AS PER AIR AND ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN CERTAIN CONTR ACT RECEIPTS. NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE TRANSACTING PARTY, WHICH SHOWED THAT ONE OF THE PAYMENTS WAS NOT RECEIVED. H OWEVER, ON ENQUIRY ASSESSEE DENIED RECEIPTS OF THIS AMOUNT. TH E AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,82,892/- AS UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT[A] . 4. BEFORE ME, IT WAS MAINLY CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NEVER PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE OTHER PARTY REGARDING THE 2 RECEIPTS AND, THEREFORE, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROV IDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE OTHER PARTY. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y AND FIND THAT BEFORE MAKING AN ADDITION AO SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED A N OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE OTHER PARTY, OTHE RWISE IT WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTIC E. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT[A] AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE OTHER PARTY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010. SD/- (T.R.SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI:18 TH JUNE, 2010. P/-*