SHAMBHULAL A. SHAH & CO., MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 25(3), MUMBAI

ITA 606/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4368 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 04-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, A.M. AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKA R, J.M. ITA NO. 606/M/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHAMBHULAL A. SHAH & CO., APPELLANT 43, PODAR CHAMBERS, 2 ND FLOOR, 109, SA BRELVI ROAD, MUMBAI 01 (PAN AAAFS5119G) VS. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPONDENT RANGE 12(2), MUMBAI. APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.K. SINGH ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 23, MUMBAI, DATED 19.11.2009 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CIRCUMSTA NCES WHICH PREVENTED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED ALSO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE BILL S, VOUCHERS, ETC. AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE VERIFIED AND CALL ING FOR AN DEMAND REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE EVIDENCE FILED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 THE EVIDENCES & DOCUMENTS FI LED BY THE APPELLANT AS NON ADMITTED. 5. THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDIC E TO EACH OTHER. THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, ALT ER, AMEND OR ITA NO. 606/M/10 SHAMBHULAL A. SHAH & CO. 2 WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OR APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT T HE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. NONE IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HA VE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHICH WERE NOT ADMITTE D BY THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE BY WAY O F BILLS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE AO, HE FAILED TO DO SO. THE CI T(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, ON MERIT HE CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS CASE SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO AS THE CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THOSE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES AND DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT AFTER CONS IDERING THOSE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DEEM IT PROPER T O REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND OTHER MATERIALS, IF ANY, F ILES AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE HIM AND CONSIDER THE SAME WHILE DECI DING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE SIDES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED: 8 TH OCTOBER, 2010 ITA NO. 606/M/10 SHAMBHULAL A. SHAH & CO. 3 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I BENCH, I.T .A.T., MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., MUMBAI. KV