JICON EXPORTS, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 22(1), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 645/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79275 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NEERAJA PRADHAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCO ME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.645/M/2012 ( AY: 2008 - 2009) M/S. JICON EXPORTS, 9, MAHESWAR DEEP, R.B. MEHTA MARG, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI 400077. / VS. ACIT - 22(1), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AACFJ 2603 C ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / A PPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY PARIKH / RESPONDENT BY : MRS. NEERAJA PRADHAN , DR / DATE OF HEARING :30 .6.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :30 .6.2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1.2.2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 33, MUMBAI DATED 25.11.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES PLEA FOR DELETING THE ADDITION IN TOTO OF RS. 22,45,112/ - U/S 40A(2)(B) BEING PAYMENT MADE TO SISTER CONCERNS M/S. JICON INDUSTRIES FOR PURCHASES FROM THEM. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, YOUR APPEL LANT REQUEST YOUR HONOR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 22,45,112/ - IN TOTO. 3. AT THE OUTSET, SHRI SANJAY PARIKH, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE LETTER DATED 8 TH OCTOBER, 2013 AND MENTIONED THAT THE PAPER BOOK NO. II WITH SL. NOS.10 TO 20 CONSISTS OF VARIOUS PAPERS OUT OF WHICH SL NOS.11 TO 19 ARE ON RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SL NO.10 AND 20 WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEY ARE FILED FOR TH E FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 2 FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILED DISCUSSION GIVING REASONS FOR SUCH FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE SAME BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, LD COUNS EL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTIO N TO SL NO.10 AND 20 OF THE SAID PAPER BOOK - II I .E., SERIAL NO.10 CONSISTS COMPARATIVE CHART OF MACHINES SOLD BY JICON INDUSTRIES TO THE APPELLANT AND OTHER BUYERS FOR AY 2001 - 02 TO 2004 - 05 ALONG WITH NOTE AND SERIAL NO.20 CONSISTS OF COPIES OF SAMPLE BILLS FOR SALES MADE BY M/S. JICON INDUSTRIES TO THE APPELLANT AND TO THE OTHER PARTIES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2000 - 01 TO 2003 - 04 AND MENTIONED THAT THESE PAPERS WILL GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THERE IS A NEED FOR ADMITTING THE SAME AND REQUESTED FOR ORDERING THE FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE BE FORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE SAID PAPERS WERE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US AND THEY ARE RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE P ARTIES AND EXAMINED THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AND THE RELEVANT PAPERS FILED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND WE ORDER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATI ON OF THE ISSUES AFTER TAKING INTO A C C O U N T THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES MENTIONED ABOVE . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DECIDED IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED MANNER. O R D E R P R O N O U N C E D I N T H E O P E N C O U R T O N 3 0 . 6 . 2 0 1 4 . S D / - S D / - (SANJAY GARG ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 30/06/2014 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 3 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI