JASMINE P BHARUCHA, MUMBAI V. ITO 26(2)(4),

ITA 5292/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4217 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK JOHRI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , J, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5292/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 JASMIN E P BHARUCHA, FLAT NO.6 MOONREACH APARTMENT PRABHANAGAR SOCIETY P. BALU MARG PRABHADEVI MUMBAI- 400025 / VS. ITO 26(2)(4) MUMBAI- (ASSESSEE ) (REVENUE) P.A. NO. AEYPB2094R / ASSESSEE BY SHRI HARESH P. SHAH (AR) / REVENUE BY SHRI ALOK JOHRI , CIT - (DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 09/03/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 06/04/2016 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI- 28 {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, ORDER DATED 19.06.2014 PAS SED AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 14.1 2.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S: JASMINE P. BHARUCHA 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 28 HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CHANGED HER AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND WAS INFORMED ABOUT TH E SAME BY NEW REPRESENTATIVE VIDE LETTER FILED ON 3RD OCTOBER, 2013 R NO. 804. APPELLANT REPRESENTATIVE THRICE APPEARED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R AND ALL THESE OCCASION THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R FAILED TO FIND THE APPELLANTS FILE NO.995. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 28 OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND SHOULD HAVE GIVEN ONE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 28 FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT SHE HAD CHANGED HER AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HENCE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED WHEN REPRESENTATIVE HAD APPEARED THRICE BEFORE HIM AND HE COULD NOT TRACE FILE OF THE APPEL LANT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B Y SHRI HARESH P. SHAH, AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY SHRI ALOK JOHRI, DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE (DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS STATED BY THE L D. COUNSEL THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAS NO T BEEN JASMINE P. BHARUCHA 3 GIVEN IN THIS CASE BY BOTH OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR INITIALLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BUT FAIRLY STATED LATER THIS MATTER MA Y GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 3.1. THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT GET ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF S UBMITTING REQUISITE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 3.2. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO S END THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WHO SHALL GIVE AD EQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E SHALL ALSO EXTEND FULL COOPERATION TO THE AO AND SHALL FILE RE QUISITE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE AO, AS PER LAW AND FACTS. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 06 / 04 /2016 CTX? P.S/. .. JASMINE P. BHARUCHA 4 # $%&'&($ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !'# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $# $# % ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. $# $# % / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. ()* # !+ , $# # +- , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '#( ! //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI