, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6582/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI OMPRAKASH T. MEHTA, 8-A, MEHTA ESTATE, KURLA ANDHERI ROAD, SAKINAKA, MUMBAI-400072 / VS. ACIT - 21(3), ROOM NO.501, C-11, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAWAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI-400051 PAN NO. AADPM0852H ( / ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) / ASSESSEE BY SHRI K. R. LAXMINARAYNAN / REVENUE BY SHRI GANESH BARE-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 25/05/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 25/05/2016 ITA NO.6582/MUM/2014 OMPRAKASH T. MEHTA 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12/09/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MANY GROUNDS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.27,07,407/- REPRESEN TING THE VALUE OF FLAT ALLOTTED FREE OF COST TO THE ASSESSEE BY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY BUT DURING HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI K.R. LAXMINARAYANAN, CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144 R.W. S. 147 OF THE ACT DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSE E, HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) WAS NOT ADMITTE D CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE I N HAND. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SENT TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 2.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI GANESH BARE, CONTENDED THAT IN SPITE OF PROVIDING OPPORTUN ITIES ON ITA NO.6582/MUM/2014 OMPRAKASH T. MEHTA 3 VARIOUS OCCASION, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFOR E THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FR AMED U/S 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT. IT WAS PLEADED THAT N OTHING PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL EXPLA INED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, FILED BEFORE THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASS ESSEE WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND WAS OBTAINED AT THE LATER STAGE FROM COOPERATIVE SO CIETY, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE FILED. 2.2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ASSERTIONS AND WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT NO PERSON SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), NOT ADMITTED BY HIM, IS DIRECT ED TO BE FILED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS DIRE CTED TO EXAMINE THE FACTUAL MATRIX, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE A ND AFTER ITA NO.6582/MUM/2014 OMPRAKASH T. MEHTA 4 PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, SHALL DE CIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W, THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES ONLY. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE P RESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCL USION OF THE HEARING ON 25/05/2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 25/05/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %& '( / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. + + , ( %& ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. + + , / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. /01 )2 , + %& %23 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 14 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, */& ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI