RAVI S WALIA, MUMBAI V. ITO 24(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5777/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56068 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARMPAL GAJBHIYE
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC , MUMBAI BEFORE SHIRI RAJENDRA SINGH, A.M. ITA NO. : 5777/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI RAVI S. WALIA 601, PLUTO SAIBABN GALAXY, OPP. OSHIWARA BUS DEPOT, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI-400 063 PAN NO : AAGPW 7648 Q VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 24(3) (4), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DHARMPAL GAJBHIYE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. C. MAURYA DATE OF HEARING : 29 .11.2011 DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.12.2011 ORDER PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 12.04.2010 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-34 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS RAISED DISPUTES ON TWO DIFFERENT GROUNDS. 2. THE FIRST DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF `. 1,12,275/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF RENT AND SOCIETY CHARGES. THE A SSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF RENT OF `. 96,000/- AND SOCIETY CHARGES OF ITA NO : 5777/MUM/2010 SHRI RAVI S. WALIA 2 `. 16,275/- TOTALLING TO `. 1,12,275/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY BILLS IN RESPECT OF SOCIETY C HARGES AND THE LEASE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF LETTING OUT OF THE PROPERTY WAS FOR THE EARLIER PERIOD. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEE N USING THE SAID PREMISES FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. WHEN CONFRONTED, TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. THE AO , THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF EXPENSES. 3. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TI ME OF ASSESSMENT HE WAS OUT OF STATION AND, THEREFORE, ALL PAPERS CO ULD NOT BE FILED AT THAT TIME. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES I N SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES AND REQUESTED THE CIT(A) TO A DMIT THE SAME. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE SAME BEFORE THE AO DESPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. CIT(A) THUS CONFIRMED THE DI SALLOWANCES, AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS CAREFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF RENT AND S OCIETY CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING COULD NOT FURNISH T HE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM. HOWEVER, THE S AID DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WH ICH THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ENTERTAIN. IN MY VIEW, THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ITA NO : 5777/MUM/2010 SHRI RAVI S. WALIA 3 THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE NECESSARY FOR PROPER D ISPOSAL OF THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHO ULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. WE, ACCORDINGL Y, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR P ASSING THE FRESH ORDER ON THE ISSUED RAISED AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE SECOND DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF SHOOTING EXPENSES OF `. 1,45,312/-. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE D ETAILS OF SUCH EXPENSES CONTAINING NAME AND ADDRESS, PERIOD OF SHO OTING, BILLS AND VOUCHERS ETC. WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE. THE AO, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF SHOOTING EXPENSES. IN RELATION TO THIS DISALLOWANCE, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DISALLOWED 10 % OF BUSINESS PROMOTION, CONVEYANCE AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES AM OUNTING TO `. 12,104/-. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE S AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISPUTED THE DISALLOWANCES OF SHOOTING EXPENSES OF `. 1,45,312/- BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS HOWEVER, NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE. HE OBSERVED THA T THIS ISSUE WAS ITA NO : 5777/MUM/2010 SHRI RAVI S. WALIA 4 DISCUSSED IN PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BUT TH E SAID PARA RELATED TO DISALLOWANCES OF BUSINESS PROMOTION, CONVEYANCE AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY DISPUTE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THUS THE GROUND RELATING TO SHOOTING EXPENS ES REMAINED UNADJUDICATED BY THE CIT(A). I, THEREFORE, SET ASID E THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIM FOR PASSI NG A FRESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATION AND AFTER ALLOWING AN OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. SD/ - ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 02/12/2011 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR, SMC - BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ROSHANI