CYRUS K PEDDER, MUMBAI V. ITO 22(2)-1, MUMBAI

ITA 7638/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2536 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , ! ' #$, % , & BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, J M / I.T.A. NO.7638/M/14 ( % ' !(' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) MR. CYRUS K. PEDDAR 318, SWASTIK CHEMBER, SION TROMBAY ROAD, SWASTIK PARK, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI - 400071 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22 (2)(1) MUMBAI /. /. PAN/GIR NO. : AEVPP2282A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 03.03.2016 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:20.07.2016 #$ / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 33, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- '1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER {THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 22(2)(1), MUMBAI} HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING BUSINESS LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,13,708/ -, ERRONEOUSLY HOLDING THAT EXPENSES ARE NOT INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE APPELLANT AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-33 HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER . ASSESSEE BY: SHRI BRIJMOHAN POORANMAL AGARWAL DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI BHANWAR SINGH RATNOO ITA NO.7638 .M.14 A.Y.2009-10 2 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 3 1.07.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY A ND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961( IN S HORT THE ACT) WERE ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE A SSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONCLUDED BY DECLARING THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE T O THE TUNE OF RS. 7,25,480/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DECLINED THE TRADING LOSS TO THE TUNE OF APPEALS 3,13,708/-. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT(A) APPEALS MUMBAI WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEAR NED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILE CAR EFULLY. AT VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE AND DID NOT EXAMINE TH E RELEVANT RECORDS CAREFULLY THEREFORE IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN QUESTION IS WRONG AGAINST LAW AND FACTS AND IS LIAB LE TO BE SET ASIDE. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE DETAILS OF THE SALE OF GOAT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN AT P AGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS HAVE ALSO BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL WHICH LIES WITH PAGE 3TO 87 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALL THESE DOCUMEN TS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE IN THE SAID CIRCUMS TANCES THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ADDUCE THESE EVIDENCE BEFORE ASSESSING O FFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT H AS REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTIONS. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVAN CED BY THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECO RD CAREFULLY, IT CAME INTO THE NOTICE THAT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DECLINED THE BUSINESS LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,13,708/- IN CONNECTION WITH BUSINESS OF TRADIN G OF GOATS. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON THE C LOSING AND OPENING STOCK AND DOUBTED REGARDING THE BUSINESS OF TRADING GOAT. THE DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ITA NO.7638 .M.14 A.Y.2009-10 3 PRODUCED BEFORE US, ARE NOWHERE DISCUSSED IN THE OR DER IN QUESTION. AT THE STAGE WITHOUT COMMENTING UPON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS NOT LIABLE T O BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US ARE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH CAN DECIDE THE MATTER OF CONTROVERS Y BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE IN THE SAID CIRCUMST ANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE US. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 5. IN RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY A LLOWED ACCORDINGLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (AMARJIT SINGH) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %& # /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ( MUMBAI; )# DATED : 20 TH JULY, 2016 MP MP MP MP * + ,%'#- .-(' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 4. * / CIT 5. -./ &&01 , 01' , ' ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /34 5 / GUARD FILE. * / BY ORDER, - & //TRUE COPY// //$ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' ( / ITAT, MUMBAI