SABYASACHI RAY, MUMBAI V. ITO 11(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6042/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3392 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K PARIDA; MRS SANJUKTA CHOWDHURY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 6042 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SHRI SABYASACHI RAY, C-31, WILD WOOD PARK, YARI ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 400 061. / V. ITO 11(1)(4), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAFPR1185A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI P.K. PARIDA & MRS. SANJUKTA CHOWDHURY REVENUE BY : SHRI RITESH MISRA (D.R.) / DATE OF HEARING : 7-03-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-06-2016 / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING ITA NO. 6042/MUM/2013, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11-01-2012 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 3, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CAL LED THE CIT(A) ), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARISING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15-12-2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). ITA 6042/MUM/2013 2 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBA I (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) READ AS UNDER:- 1. ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS TIME BARRED - ASS T. ORDER MAY BE QUASHED. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING A ND GOING AHEAD WITH THE PROCEEDING WITH A DEFECTIVE JURISDICTION SINCE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS TIME BARRED; THEREFORE, THE ASST. ORDE R DATED 15.12.2009 DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS THE MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT A CURABLE DEFECT U/S.292BB. 2. FAILURE OF NATURAL JUSTICE THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THERE WA S NO ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE APPELLANT WHILE PASSING PRACTICALLY THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT ORDER ; AS THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUFFER FROM FAILURE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS MAY BE SET-ASIDE TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER AS ON MERITS THE APPELLANT HAS REASONABLY A STRONG CASE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON MERITS: 3. DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT TREATED AND CONFIRMED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE RS. 38,27,799/- (I) THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT COMPRISING OF CHEQUES AND CASH FROM TIM E TO TIME REPRESENT LOAN ON WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS ATTEMPTED IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO REPAY TO THE PARTIES; AS PARTIES ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE ADDRESSES AND THE AMOUNT WAS BORROWED FOR APPELLANT'S PROFESSIONAL WORK WHICH WAS STOPPED FOR SOMETIME, TH E ADDITION THEREOF IS UNCALLED FOR AND THE ORDER DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE FOR DENOVO ASSESSMENT. II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, IF IT IS A CASE OF UNDI SCLOSED INCOME, THERE WAS NO NEED BY THE APPELLANT TO DEPOSIT INTO HIS BA NK ACCOUNT. AS ALL THE ENTRIES HAVE MERITS, IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE CORRECT ASSESSMENT BASED ON AVAILABLE FACTS. 4. LEVY OF PENAL INTEREST. THE APPELLANT, ON MERITS, DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO PENA L INTEREST. ITA 6042/MUM/2013 3 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 576 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17 TH JANUARY, 2012 , WHEREBY THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL WAS 17 TH MARCH, 2012, HOWEVER, THE APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL WAS FILED ON 14 TH OCTOBER, 2013 RESULTING IN DELAY OF 576 DAYS IN FIL ING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE ASSESS EE FILED AN APPLICATION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF THE DELAY WHEREBY PRAYERS FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 576 DAYS WAS MADE. IT IS T HE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EM PLOYEE AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY PROFESSIONAL. THERE WAS THREE DEA THS IN THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE WITHIN A SPAN OF 15 TO 17 MONTHS I.E. HIS SISTER, FATHER AND MOTHER DIED ON 26-10-2010, 02-09-2010 AND 11-10-2011 RESPE CTIVELY WHICH HAD ADVERSELY AFFECTED THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT IN PROPER STATE OF MIND AND HEALTH. THERE WERE ALSO PROPERTY LITIGATI ONS AFTER THE DEATH OF ASSESSEES MOTHER AND THE ASSESSEE IS ORIGINALLY FR OM KOLKATTA WHEREBY HE HAS TO PURSUE CONTINUOUSLY THE LITIGATION BY ATTEND ING THE COURTZ IN KOLKATTA IN CONNECTION WITH PROPERTY DISPUTES. IT IS SUBMITT ED THAT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY PRECARIOUS AND NO PROFESSIONAL WORK WAS COMING TO THE ASSESSEE FOR TWO/THREE YEARS. FROM T HE MEAGER AMOUNT OF SALARY EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PULL ON HIS DAILY LIFE AND THERE WAS NO MONEY EVEN TO PAY THE LEGAL A ND PROFESSIONAL COST. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO PERMANENT PLAC E OF STAY IN MUMBAI THOUGH HE HAD FILED RETURN IN MUMBAI. IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE OF TAX RELATED MATTERS AND WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO HIRE ANY PROFESSIONAL TO TAKE UP HIS MATTER. THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS STRONG CASE ON MERITS AND BALANCE OF CONVE NIENCE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE A DDITIONS OF RS. ITA 6042/MUM/2013 4 38,27,799/- MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND NOW THE AS SESSEE IS ABLE TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCES AND DETAILS, IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE RELIES UPON TO SUPPORT HIS CASE ON MERITS ARE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WITH THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE 24-79 WHICH ARE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR OF LAND ACQU ISITION V. MST. KATIZ AND OTHERS, 167 ITR 471 , N. BALKRISHNA V. KRISHNAMURTH Y (1998) 7 SCC 123 AND OTHER CASES AS PER DETAILS FILED. 4. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE PRA YER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSEES APPLIC ATION ALONG AFFIDAVIT DATED 11-10-2013, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUF FICIENT CAUSE IN DELAY IN FILING HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS STATED TO BE NOT IN A POSITION TO FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME ON ACCOUNT OF T HREE DEATHS IN HIS FAMILY AND THE PRECARIOUS FINANCIAL POSITION ON ACCOUNT OF HIS MEAGER SALARY AND THE LITIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTIES AFTER THE FA MILY MEMBERS DEATH. THE ASSESSEE WAS STATED TO BE SUFFERING FROM PRECARIOUS FINANCIAL PROBLEM, WHICH WAS BROUGHT OUT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT FILED WITH THE TRI BUNAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW BASED ON THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TH E REASONS CITED THEREIN ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK, THERE IS NO DELIBERATE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE REASONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE REFLECTING FROM H IS APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH , AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR OF L AND ACQUISITION V. MST. KATIZ AND OTHERS AND N. BALKRISHNA V. KRISHNAMURTHY (SUPRA), WE ARE ITA 6042/MUM/2013 5 INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 576 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND ACCORDINGLY THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL IS HEREBY CONDONED . 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS BASED UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AIR WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 38,27,799/- IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DE POSIT BY THE A.O., BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(2) READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. NOTIC E U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE AXIS BANK ON THE BASIS OF AIR IN FORMATION , WHEREBY THE BANK SUBMITTED COPIES OF STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. FROM THE BANK STA TEMENT, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 38,27, 799/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN CASH. THUS, THE A.O. COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 38,27,799/- TREATING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED IN COME WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ASSESSMENT OR DERS DATED 15 TH DECEMBER, 2009 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 15-12-2 009 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST AP PEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ARE CASH LOANS BY THE ASSESSEE FROM NUMBER OF PERSONS AND THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE LIABILITIES OF THE ASSESS EE WHICH DOES HAVE ANY ELEMENT OF INCOME, THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 143(3) OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE AO DATED 15-12-2009 MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH PROPER EXPLANATION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITA 6042/MUM/2013 6 THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSIT AND ACCORDINGLY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 15-12-2009 PASSED BY TH E AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT , VIDE ORDERS DATED 11.01.2012. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS DATED 11.01.2012 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. THERE WAS SERIOUS FAMILY PROBLEMS IN THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE BY THERE WERE THREE DEATH WITHIN A SPAN TO 15 TO 17 MONTHS OF FATHER, MOTHER AND SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BORROWED MONEY FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AS CASH LOANS. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE PROFESSION OF TV SERIAL EDITING AND THERE WAS LOSSES IN THE WORK OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM SEVERE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPIES OF CHEQ UES WHICH WERE BOUNCED,WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED WI TH THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE COULD NOT MAKE PROPER RE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DID NOT HAVE PROPE R ADVICE FROM PROFESSIONAL TO PRESENT HIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL PRAYED A ND MADE STATEMENT BEFORE THE BENCH THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN PROPERLY AND REPRESENT HIS CASE ALONG WITH COGENT EVIDENCES TO S UBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTIONS AND HENCE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT H IS CASE MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND MERE LY ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS THE CASE MAY NOT BE THROWN OUT AT THRESHOLD. THE LD COU NSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED WITH TH E TRIBUNAL ,ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN PAGE 24-79 OF PAPER BOOK WHEREBY DETAI LS OF LOANS RAISED AGREEMENTS WITH PARTIES FROM WHOM LOANS WERE RAISED . THE ASSESSEE COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED VARIOUS SEVERAL LEGAL NOTICES AND LI TIGATIONS IN THE COURTS BEING RAISED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DUE TO BOUNCING OF CHEQ UES WHICH ARE ALL PLACED IN PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH THE AS SESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED ITA 6042/MUM/2013 7 PROVES THAT FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS AND DIFFICULTIES WE RE FACED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO IT EVIDENCES THAT THE LOANS WERE RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THESE ARE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH NEED VERIFICATION BY AUT HORITIES BELOW AND IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE VITAL AND RELEVANT EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE CONTENTIONS AND CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AND PRAYED THAT MATTER BE SET AS IDE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR EXAMINATION OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND DE-NO VO DETERMINATION ON MERITS BY THE AO. 11. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DE NOVO RE-DETERM INATION OF THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEING SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND AL SO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT AS FACT S ARE EMERGING FROM RECORDS PRODUCED BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPRESENT HIS CASE PROPERLY BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DUE TO VARIOU S PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE DOCUME NTS AND AFFIDAVIT PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 38,77 ,799/- REFLECTING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE SOURCES WAS TO BE FURNISHED WITH COGENT EVIDENCES BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO NOR THERE WAS REPRESENTATION BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO WH EN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED BY THE AO . THE AO WAS NOT LEFT WITH ANY OTHER OPTION BUT TO PROCEED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT BASED ON THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT DU E TO VARIOUS PERSONAL AND FAMILY PROBLEMS FACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS FAMILY INCLUDING DEATH OF THREE FAMILY MEMBERS I.E. FATHER, MOTHER AND SISTER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPRESENT HIS CASE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT PROPERLY AND ALSO DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS NOW PROVIDED TO THE ITA 6042/MUM/2013 8 ASSESSEE, THEN HE CAN REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE AO WITH COGENT EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS TO JUSTIFY AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CL AIMS AND CONTENTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SOUGHT ADMISSION OF SUCH AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES AS PER RULE 29 OF INCOME TAX(APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 19 63, WHICH ARE PLACED IN PAPER BOOK FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL.WE HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH ARE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR T HE FIRST TIME AND WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SAME NEED TO BE ADMITTED A S THEY ARE RELEVANT EVIDENCES , HOWEVER, THESE EVIDENCES NEEDS EXAMINAT ION AND VERIFICATION BY THE REVENUE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW AND LOOKING IN TO THE FAMILY AND PERSONAL PROBLEMS FACED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ENUMERATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PLEADINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND ALSO PRODUCTION O F RELEVANT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 24-79 FOR THE F IRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 11 -01-2012 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15-12-2009 PA SSED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, AND RESTORE THE FRAMING OF THE D E-NOVO ASSESSMENT TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED TO RAISE ALL RELEVANT CLAIMS AND CONTENTION S BOTH ON LAW AND ON FACTS BEFORE THE AO AND IS ALLOWED TO PRODUCE ALL RELEVAN T EVIDENCES AND EXPLANATIONS TO SUPPORT AND PROVE ITS CONTENTIONS A ND CLAIMS, WHICH SHALL BE ADMITTED BY THE AO AND ADJUDICATED ON MERITS IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BEFORE F RAMING DE-NOVO ASSESSMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THIS DI SPOSES OF ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N0. 6042/MUM/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 6042/MUM/2013 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD JUNE , 2016. # $% &' 03-06-2016 ( ) SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ MUMBAI ; & DATED 03-06-2016 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI