SONA TRANSPORT P. LTD, MUMBAI V. CIT(A) VII, MUMBAI

ITA 5422/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8455 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D SONGATE
• Assessee Lawyers: AJEET A MANWANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI I BENCH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.5422/MUM/2009 A.Y 2005-06 M/S SONA TRANSPORT PVT. LTD., OPP. NEELAM HOTEL, NEAR AMAR CINEMA, GOVANDI, MUMBAI 400 088 PAN:AABCS 1137 M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 7 (2) (4), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AJEET A. MANWANI. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. SONGATE. O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, AM: IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS: 1. LD. CIT[A] HAS ERRED TO UPHOLD & ENHANCE THE ADDITI ON TO ` `` ` .10,20,632/-, ON THE POINT OF ALLEGED FREIGHT CHARG ES NOT DISCLOSED AS RECEIPTS IN P & L ACCOUNT BY THE APPEL LANT COMPANY. 2. LD. CIT[A] HAS ERRED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF ` `` ` .36,000/- ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED FROM M/S DAYNITE ENGINEERS AND C ONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. 3. LD. CIT[A] HAS ERRED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF ` `` ` .88,110/- AS ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED FROM M/S ARDHESHIR PVT. LTD. 2. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO NOTICED THAT CERTAIN RECEIPTS HAVE N OT BEEN SHOWN PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE CLAIM OF TDS, E.G., RECEIPT FROM MFC TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. ACCORDING TO THE AO, AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE WAS OF ` `` ` .3,21,000/- BUT NOTHING WAS SHOWN. THE LD. CIT[A] H AD TREATED THE RECEIPT FROM THIS PARTY AT ` `` ` .10,20,632/-. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE 2 ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ACTUALLY THE RECEIPT FROM THIS PARTY WAS OF ` `` ` .9.99,600/- AS PER CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM MFC TRA NSPORT PVT. LTD. [COPY PLACED AT PAGE 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK]. THIS CO NFIRMATION LETTER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT[A] HAV E NOT EXAMINED THE RECORDS PROPERLY BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER TWO ISSUES REGARDING THE OTHER TWO ADD ITIONS, THEY HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN EXAMINED PROPERTY. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT[A] AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS PROPOSAL WAS ACCEPTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P/-*