, , H, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6330/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 RAGHV AN V. NAIR, B-128, ROLEX SHOPPING CENTRE, STN RD, GOREGAON(W) MUMBAI-400062 / VS. ITO 24(3)(4) R.NO. 204, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. ABIPN8309C APPELLANT BY SHRI R.C. JAIN (AR) REVENUE BY S HRI M.C. OMI NIGGSHEN ( DR) / DATE OF HEARING: 18/01/2017 / DATE OF ORDER: 07/02/2017 / O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA, A.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI -34 (IN SHORT CIT(A)}, DATED 01.08.2014 PASSED ORDER AGAI NST U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.201 3 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RAISED BY APPELLANT THA T ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOTICE OF DEMAND WAS NOT SERVED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE LAW. RAGHVAN V. NAIR 2 2. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN MAKING/ SUSTAINING ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS 7,09,42,510 ON ACCOUNT OF 'BOGUS PURCHASES / LOW GROSS PROFIT RATIO' 3. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW IN REJEC TING/ UPHOLDING REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN MAKING/ SUST AINING ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.13,10,855/- U/S 14A OF THE ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS STATED AT THE VERY OUTSET BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THOU GH GROUND NO.1 WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT IT HAS N OT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY HIM, THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION OF J URISDICTIONAL GROUND I.E. GROUND NO.1. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DR FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORES AID GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT IT WAS NOT AD JUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIO NED THAT GROUND NO.1 WAS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, IT WAS NO T ADJUDICATED. LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS GR OUND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER THEREFORE ITS PROPER ADJU DICATION IS MANDATORY BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION COULD BE HELD ON ME RITS. WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. COUNSEL AND THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WHO SHALL ADJUDICATE ALL THE GROUNDS AFRESH INCLUDING G ROUND NO.1 AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL MAKE REQUISITE COOPERATION WITH THE LD. RAGHVAN V. NAIR 3 CIT(A) BY ATTENDING HEARING AND PLACING WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS AND EVIDENCES IN HIS SUPPORT AND AS MAY BE DIRECTED AS PER LAW AND FACTS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MA Y BE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CONCL USION OF HEARING. SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA ) SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 07/02/2017 CTX? P.S/. .. !'#$%&%'# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. #$% &' , &' ) , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. %*+ , / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, # //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI