AFTAB AHMED KHAN, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6756/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 675619914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR DANIEL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI [ , ,, , . , , . . . , BEFORE SHRI R C SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM ./ ITA NO.6756/MUM/2010 ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AFTAB AHMED KHAN AHMED EGG MERCHANT, AMAN GUL COMPOUND, KHAR DANDA, KHAR (W), MUMBAI- 400 052 PAN AAAPH8742G VS. THE ITO WD 19(1)(3) MUMBAI ( #$ /APPELLANT) ( %&#$ /RESPONDENT) ! ' ()* / DATE OF HEARING :25.11.2014. +,' ' ()* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.01.2015 APPELLANT BY : DR DANIEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-30 DATED 25.06.2010 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING REVISED GRO UNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.34,58,627/- AS UNE XPLAINED PURCHASE INSPITE OF SUBMITTING ALL THE DETAILS DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,133/- ON ACCOUN T OF DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASES AS PER PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND PARTY WISE PURCHASES ITA NO.6756/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 2 SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,969/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND/OR VARY ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OR BEFORE HEARING OF THIS A PPEAL 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HA S STATED THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITIONS FOR WANT OF RECONCILIATION OF CERTAI N BILLS AND VOUCHERS RELATING TO SALE AND PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAD SUBMITTED ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS ETC. THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A) UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T RULES WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR HIS REPORT. THE AO THOUGH IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAD GIVEN A POSITIVE FINDING A BOUT THE BILLS RELATING TO PURCHASES MADE FROM HINDUSTAN POULTRY, HOWEVER, FAI LED TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCES RELATING TO THE PURCHASES FROM OTHER CONCERNS. AN OBJECTION, REPLY AGAINST THE REMAND REPORT WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) DEPICTING THE VARIOUS MISTAKES DONE BY THE AO WHILE CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDINGS SOLELY ON THE BASIS O F REMAND REPORT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS/REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID REMAND REPORT. THE LEARNED AR HAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENC ES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REQUIRED TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE AO AND, HENCE , HE BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS ABOUT THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND ALSO SHOW AS TO HOW THE REMA ND REPORT IN QUESTION WAS NOT ACCURATE. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS REL IED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATTER AND GOING THROUGH T HE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 08.03.2010, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTE R NEEDS FRESH EXAMINATION AT THE HANDS OF THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE MA TTER ON THE ABOVE ISSUE TO THE ITA NO.6756/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 3 FILE OF THE AO TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JANUARY, 2015 SD/- SD/- (R C SHARMA) (SANJAY GAR G) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; -.! DATED : 16 TH JANUARY, 2015. SA . ' %(/ 0/'( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #$ /THE APPELLANT. 2. %&#$ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 1 ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. 1 / CIT 5. /2 %(! , , / DR, A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI .! / BY ORDER, &/( %( //TRUE COPY// / 3 (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI