VIMALA KOLLURI, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-15(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6255/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0587 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARJU CERTADIA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6255/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 M/S. VIMALA KOLLURI, C/O. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD., CROSS ROAD-C, ROAD NO.1, PLOT D, MIDC, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400 093 PAN: ANBPK8683P VS. I NCOME TAX OFFICER - 15 ( 2 )( 2 ), ROOM NO.110, 1 ST FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI 400 007 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : MS. NEHA PARANJPE, A.R. REVENUE BY : MS. ARJU CERTADIA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 15.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.02.2018 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE IS RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF BHARAT HEAVY E LECTRICALS COMPANY. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT W AS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE TIME DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/- AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED SALARY OF RS.10,99,157/- FROM M/S. BH ARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE ITA NO.6255/M/2017 M/S. VIMALA KOLLURI 2 ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A O) AND THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A.R. SUBMI TTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE BY WAY OF PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE AO WHICH IS COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING THE R ETURN FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ALONG WITH FORM NO.16. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF LETTER ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 18.11.13 WHICH IS ISSUED BY HDFC BANK AND BANK STATEMENT. THOUGH ALL THE EVIDENCES WERE SUBM ITTED THE MATTER WAS DECIDED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME. THEREFOR E, SHE REQUESTED THE MATTER TO BE RESTORED TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE M ATTER AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES. 4. THE LD. D.R. OBJECTED TO IT. 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, I FIND THAT ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM PAGE 125 AND COPY OF LETTER FROM HDFC BANK AT PAGE NO.629. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THESE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE A ND FAIRPLAY, I RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO AND AO IS DIRECTE D TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AND PASS THE ORDER AFTER GIVING DUE O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.02.2018. SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMB ER MUMBAI, DATED: 07.02.2018. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. ITA NO.6255/M/2017 M/S. VIMALA KOLLURI 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.