ACIT CIR 2, MUMBAI V. KAMLESH N JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 581/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70973 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER

Judgement Text

MR. KAMLESH N. JAIN 5 THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AS SUCH, BECAUSE THE BANK STATEMENT AND CONFIRMATION COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT MERELY CORROBOR ATES THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS HIMSELF EXAMINED THE SAM E. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS TREATED AS DI SMISSED. !' # 28 TH AUGUST 2013 $% ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST 2013 SD/- & && &. .. . () () () () * * * * B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- + + + + , , , , # ## # - * - * - * - * AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER '&% '&% '&% '&% # ## # MUMBAI, !' !' !' !' DATED : 28 TH AUGUST 2013 .-+/ 0/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) -12 / THE ASSESSEE; (2) / THE REVENUE; (3) 3 # () / THE CIT(A); (4) 3 # / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) / 6$ .--71, 9 71 , '&% # / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) $:2 ;% / GUARD FILE. *19 / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY ? - *7= / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY @ / * ' / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) 9 71 , '&% # / ITAT, MUMBAI