M/S. MAHESH (INDIA) EXPORT IMPORT CO., MUMBAI V. THE ITO WD 14(2),

ITA 6895/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9368 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H V JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AND SHRI V.D. RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 68 95/MUM/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04. MAHESH (INDIA) EXPORT IMPORT CO., TH E INCOME TAX OFFICER, 808, COTTON EXCHANGE BLDG., VS. WARD-14(2), MUMBAI. KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI-400 002. PAN AAFFM6597Q. APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A. NO. 7132/MUM/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS. MAH ESH (INDIA) EXPORT 14(2), MUMBAI. IMPORT CO., MUMBAI. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. ASSESSEE BY : NONE. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI H.V. JAIN. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XIV, MUMBAI DATED 3 RD SEPT., 2007. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUAL OF NOTICE BY RPAD. ON EARLIER OCCASIONS ALSO NONE APPE ARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE BY RPAD. THERE IS NO V AKALATNAMA FILED BY ANY COUNSEL NOR HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY REQUEST FOR AD JOURNMENT. UNDER 2 THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISPOSE OF THE CASE EXPARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3. WE HAVE HEARD MR. H.V. JAIN, LEARNED SR. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ON DEP B. THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDI CATION IN THE LINE OF THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF TOPMAN EXPORTS VS. ITO (2009) 318 ITR (AT) 87 (MUMBAI). 5. REGARDING GROUND NOS. 2 TO 8, THE ASSESSEE AGIT ATES AGAINST ADHOC DISALLOWANCES AND ADDITIONS. IN THE ABSENCE O F ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE, WE DISMISS THESE GROUNDS FOR NON PROSECUT ION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 7. COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEAL, IT APPEARS THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) H AS ADMITTED CERTAIN EVIDENCES WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO I N VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (V.D. RAO) (J. SUDHAKARY REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI, DATED : 19 TH JANUARY, 2010. WAKODE 3 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, I-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES