COMET INVESTMENTS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5253/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9023 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R SINGH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 115JB; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5253/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2008-09) M/S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 2 ND FLOOR, OFFICE NO.3, KOTHARI HOUSE, 5/7, OAK LANE, ABOVE GOKUL RESTAURANT, FORT, MUMBAI-400023 PAN: AAACC2051Q VS. DCIT-4(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. AJAY R. SINGH (AR) REVENUE BY : SH. RAJAT MITTAL (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.10.2017 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT (THE ACT) IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-9 [CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 21.09.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (AY) 2008- 09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL . 1. REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW: L. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE REOPEN ING OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING FACTS THAT I T IS BASED ON THE CONJECTURES, SURMISES AND ASSUMPTIONS AND NOT ON ANY TANGIBLE MA TERIAL, EVEN IF SOME INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THE AO FAILED TO APPLY HIS INDEPENDENT MIND TO SUCH MATERIAL BEFORE REOPENING THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) DT 30/11/2010. ITA NO.5253/M/2015- M/ S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 2 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT , THE A.O. HAD NOT FURNISHED THE COPY OF RECORDED REASONS ON THE BASIS WHICH CAS E WAS REOPENED. THEREFORE, A.O. HAS FAILED TO FOLLOW THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. T HIS FACT WAS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 2. VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE: 3. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASST ORDER PA SSED BY THE A.O. WITHOUT PROVIDING A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MR. MUKESH CHO KSI ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AND FURTHER NO OPP ORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION, IN SPITE OF SPE CIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE AO AS WELL BEFORE CIT (A). 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING CO PY OF ORDER, NOR PROVIDING STATEMENT/ INFORMATION/ OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMI NATION OF THE SAID ALLEGED PARTY. HENCE THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS VI OLATED AT TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. III. ADDITION OF RS. 1,13,76,6361- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME : 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1,13,76,636/- AS THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THE APPELLANT WERE GENU INE AND WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY ALL THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. WITHOUT APPRECIATIN G THAT THE DETAILS OF BANK STATEMENTS SHOWING TRANSACTION, (COPY OF CONTRACT N OTES, FORM 10DB ETC WERE FURNISHED, THUS THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED.) 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING RS.1,13,76, 636/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGED ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HENCE, THE ADDITION MAY BE DELE TED. IV. ADDITION OF RS. 5,68,832/- TOWARDS ALLEGED COMMISSI ON PAID. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID COMMISSION OF 5% OF 5,68,832/- FOR ALLEGED PURCHASE OF ENGINEERED GAINS AND MAKING ADDITION, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY RECORDS OR EV IDENCE, HENCE THE ADDITION IS ON ASSUMPTION AND CONJECTURES, THE SAME MAY BE D ELETED. 8. THE ASSESSEE DENIES THE PENAL INTEREST LEVIED U/ S 234A, 234B AND 234C. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPA NY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE, SHARE DERIVATIVES AND COMMODITY DERIVATIVES, FILED ITS ITA NO.5253/M/2015- M/ S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 3 RETURN OF INCOME FOR RELEVANT AY ON 30.09.2008 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,84,03,500/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143 (1) OF THE ACT AND WAS ACCEPTED ON 30.10.2009. AGAIN THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 30.11.2010 UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,37,68,106/- UNDER THE NOR MAL PROVISION AND RS. 3,14,79,620/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED UNDER SE CTION 147 OF THE ACT VIDE NOTICE DATED 26.03.2013. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICE OF RE- OPENING CONTENDED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOM E MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE. THE ASS ESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED ON THE GROUND THAT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX (INV ESTIGATION) AS CONDUCTED SEARCH OPERATION IN CASE OF MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PV T. LTD. AND ITS GROUP CASES ON 25.11.2009. MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WAS MANAGED BY MUKESH CHOKSI GROUP. IN THE SEARCH OPERATION, IT WA S REVEALED THAT THIS GROUP WAS INVOLVED IN GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SPECULATION PRO FIT OR LOSS. IT WAS ALSO REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO AVAILED ACCOMMO DATION ENTRIES FROM MUKESH CHOKSI GROUP. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U NDER SECTION 143(3) ORIGINAL SECTION 147 ON 24.03.2014. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,13,76,6 36/- IN THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ADDITION OF RS. 5,68,382/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION @ 5% PAID ON THE ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION E NTRIES. ON APPEAL ITA NO.5253/M/2015- M/ S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 4 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE RE-OPENING AS WELL AS BO TH THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WERE UPHELD. THUS, FURTHER AGGRIE VED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) FOR THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENU E AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET OF HEAR ING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 1 & 2. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS NO OBJECTION ON THE STATEMEN T OF LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, CONSIDERING THE CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES, GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE DISMISSED. 4. GROUND NO. 3&4 RELATES TO VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUS TICE, GROUND NO.5 &6 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 11,37,63,636/- ON ACCOUN T OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS SHARE TRANSACTION AND GROUND NO .7 RELATES TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION ON SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME . ALL THESE ISSUES ARE INTERCONNECTED, THUS, TAKEN UP TOGETHER. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CONTENTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED PHOTOCOPIES OF BILLS ISSUED BY M/S G OLDSTAR FINVEST (P) LTD., LEDGER ACCOUNT, CONFIRMATION AND MASTER SUMMARY OF TRANSACTION FROM SOFTWARE OF BROKERS ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENT SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF THE GOODS IN T HE ASSESSEES PREMISES STOCK-BOOK AND PARTY WISE SALES AND PURCHA SE. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.5253/M/2015- M/ S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 5 PROVIDED ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER R EQUIRED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE HIS MIND TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED FA KE CREDIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY PROVIDED ON THE ASSUMPTION WITHOUT T RANSACTION ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GENUINE AND WITHOUT REBUTTING ANY EVIDENCE OR THE EXPLANATION AND THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED IN HIS FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT F URNISHED THE REPORT UNDER FORM 10DB IN SUPPORT OF SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE FORM 10DB ALONG WITH SUBMISSION DATED 13.02.2013. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE AD DITION OF RS.1,13,76,636/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FAILED TO PROVIDE THE STATEMENT OF MUKESH CHOKSI ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE- OPENED AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS BASED. NO OPPORTU NITY OF CROSS- EXAMINATION WAS GIVEN DESPITE SPECIFIC REQUISITE TO THE ASSESSEE, NO COPY OF THE LEDGER RELIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSION , EXPLANATION AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ITO VS . M. PIRAI CHOODI (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIE D UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED IN THE FORM OF PA PER BOOK. ITA NO.5253/M/2015- M/ S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 6 SR. NO. PARTICULARS PG. NO. 1. SLP REJECTED DT 27/1/2014 AGAINST HON'BLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT JUDGEMENT CIT VS. MUKESH R. MAROLIA ITA NO. 456 OF 2007, DATED 7 TH SEPT. 2011. 1-5 2. MUKESH R MAROLIA VIS. ACIT (2006) 6 SOT 247(MUM) 6-17 3. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT CIT VS. SHAR DA CREDIT P. LTD. ITA NO. 3090 OF 2009, DATED 12TH SEPT. 201L. 18 4. DY. CIT VS. SHARDA CREDIT P. LTD. IT AT ORDER DA TED 9/2/2009 19-23 5. HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT ORDER DT 5/1/2012 ITA NO (L): 1739 OF2010 IN CASE OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TOSHNIWAL. 24 6. SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR TOSHNIWAL. ITAT ORDER DT 24/ 2/2010 25-31 7. MAYUR SHAH MUMBAI ITAT ITA NO. 2390/M/2013 ORDER DT 10/7/2013 32-36 8. ITO VS. RASILA N. GADA & OTHERS MUMBAI ITAT ORDER DATED 8-8-2012. 37-47 9. CIT V/S. HARAKCHAND GADA , BOMBAY HIGH COURT D ATED 16TH MARCH 2015 48-50 10. CIT V/S. KESAR GADA, BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 21 ST MARCH 2015 51-54 11. CIT V/S. KASTURBEN GADA BOMBAY HIGH COURT DAT ED 21 ST MARCH 2015 55-58 12. ARVIND ASMAL MEHTA V/S ITO, MUMBAI ITAT, ITA NO - 2799/M/2015, ORDER DT 29/02/2016 59-67 13. SHRI KAMLESH MUNDRA V/S ITO, MUMBAI, ITA NO : 6248/M/2012, ORDER DT 04/03/2016 68-79 14. SUDHANSHU S PANDHARE V/S ITO DT 05/10/2016 8 0-85 15. SUNIL PRAKASH V/S ACIT, DT: 08/03/2017 86-92 16. SMT. SUNITA JAIN VIS ITO, , AHD ITAT, ITA NO-50 1 & 502/ AHD/2016, ORDER DT 09/03/2017 93- 102 5. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE MADE MORE EMPHASIS ON TH E DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN SUNIL PRAKASH VS. ACI T (SL. NO.15 OF ABOVE) AND WOULD ARGUE THAT ON THE SIMILAR FACT, THE TRIBU NAL HAS GRANTED RELIEF. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT WAS ARGUED THAT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOM E-TAX (INVESTIGATION) MADE THE FULL-FLEDGED INVESTIGATION DURING THE SEAR CH CONDUCED AT THE ITA NO.5253/M/2015- M/ S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 7 PREMISES OF MUKESH CHOKSI GROUP. IN THE SEARCH, IT WAS UNEARTHED THAT MUKESH CHOKSI GROUP WAS INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOM MODATION ENTRIES. THE TRIBUNAL IN A NUMBER OF CASES HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME OF MUKESH CHOKSI AS A COMMISSION AGENT FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN F ULL OPPORTUNITIES BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AND ORDER ON APPEAL BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE FILED A COPY OF DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN SHRI JAYESH K. SAMAT VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 1000 TO 1003/MUM/2013 AND ITA NO. 924 & 928/MUM/2015 SHOWING THAT THE TRIBUNA L HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME OF SHRI JAYESH K. SAMAT AND MUKESH CHOKSI AS AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RE-ASSES SMENT PROCEEDING OBSERVED THAT IN THE SEARCH OPERATION IN CASE OF MA HASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD., IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM MUKESH CHOKSI GROUP. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILED OF COMMODITY DERIVATIVES, PARTY WISE DETAILS OF LOS S, SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX CERTIFICATE, MASTER SUMMARY OF TRANSACTION AND DETAILS OF ANY OTHER TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT WITH MUKESH CHOKSI. THE ASS ESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERIES OF AO SUBMITTED HIS REPLY DATED 13.02.2014 AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF CUMULATIVE SHARE TRADING REPORT FOR LOSS INCURRED FROM DERIVATIVES OPERATION OF RS. 1,81,74,248/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.5253/M/2015- M/ S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 8 FURTHER FURNISHED THE DETAILED OF TRANSACTION AND C ONTENDED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CON TENDED THAT THEY HAVE PAID THE SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX OF RS. 52,44,967/ - AND ELIGIBLE FOR REBATE UNDER SECTION 88E OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO HOLDING THAT DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH FROM THE SEIZED COMPUTER DATA, LIST OF BENEFICIARY WAS TAKEN AND TH E ASSESSEE IS REPORTED TO ONE OF THE BENEFICIARY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILED FINAL ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS. 1,13,76,363/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THUS, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,13,76,636/- AND FURTHER ADDED COMMISSION P AYMENT @ 5% ON SUCH UNEXPLAINED MONEY. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACT ION OF ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT TRANSACTION MADE WITH ALLIANCE INTERMEDIARY AND NETWORK PVT. LTD. (GROUP CONCERNED OF MUKESH CHOKSI ) WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME-TAX D EPARTMENT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH REPORT UNDER SECTION 10DB IN SUPPORT OF SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX. THE ADDITION ON COMMIS SION PAYMENT WAS ALSO SUSTAINED HOLDING THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DOUBT TH AT ASSESSEE CAN GET ANY ENTRY FROM ANY OTHER BUSINESS ENTITY WITHOUT ANY PA YMENT OF COMMISSION OF MONEY. 7. WE HAVE SEEN THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LD. CIT(A) MADE ANY COMMENT ON THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FU RNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 01.09.2010 FURNI SHED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES AND THE DETAILED OF SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX PAID ITA NO.5253/M/2015- M/ S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 9 ALONG WITH THE LEDGER COPIES TO FORM 10DB (COPY OF WHICH AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 41 & 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE ASSESSEE F URNISHED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT DERIVATIVE TRADING LEDGER (PAGE NO. 42 OF P APER BOOK). WE HAVE FURTHER SEEN THAT NO INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT BY AO BEFORE MAKING ADDITION IN THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 11.09.2013 (PAGE 53 & 54 OF PAPER BOOK) THAT ASSESS EE HAS NOT MADE ANY TRANSACTION WITH MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND THAT ALL TRANSACTION WERE MADE THROUGH M/S GOLDSTAR FINVEST (P) LTD. 8. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING ON THE SUBMISSION AND DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF MUKESH CHOKSI. NO OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS PRO VIDED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS THE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN TO ASSESSEE ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED. CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF ITO VS. M. PIRAI CHOODI (SUPRA), WE DEEM IT APPROPR IATE TO RESTORE THE GROUND NO. 5,6 &7 TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL GRANT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE B EFORE PASSING THE ORDER AFRESH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ALSO DIRECTED TO C ONSIDER THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER TO PROVIDE ALL THE MATERIAL WHICH MAY BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE GROUND NO. 5 TO 7 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.5253/M/2015- M/ S COMET INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. 10 9. GROUND NO. 8 RELATES TO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A , 234B AND 234C , WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATIO N. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH DAY OF OCTOBE R 2017. SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (PAWAN SINGH) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 11/10/2017 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/