TOTOCONSTRUCTION COM P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 2(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7716/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 771619914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH; SATENDRA PANDEY
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH -MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH,(A.M.) I.T.A. NO.7716/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 TOTO CONSTRUCTION COM PVT. LTD. C/O., SHRI MINESH MODY 4/89, MUNICIPAL BUILDING SABU SIDDIC ROAD MUMBAI 400 001. PAN : AABCT 3804 B VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3)(3) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI JITENDRA SINGH AND SHRI SATENDRA PANDEY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.C. MAURYA DATE OF HEARING : 1.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 ST DECEMBER, 2011 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM). THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.9.2010 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. TH E ONLY DISPUTE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF SOME EXPENSES. ITA NO.7716/M/10 A.Y:04-05 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR HAD RETURNED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,510/- . SUBSEQUENTLY CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO GAVE SEVERAL OPPORTUNI TIES FOR PRODUCING BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES. HOW EVER, AS PER AO THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE ONLY INCOMPLETE DETAILS AND WITHOU T ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED MATERIAL CHARGES OF RS.1,04,652/-; LABOUR CHARGES RS.52,450/- AND OTHER EXPENSES RS.48,216/ -. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES. DISALLOWE D BY THE AO. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER IN THE APPELLATE ORDER OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES. NO FORMAL APPLICATION WAS MADE UNDER RULE 46A FOR FILING ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE. HE, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AGGRIEVED B Y WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE RULES IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK CONTAI NING COPIES OF THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FROM PAGES 1-136. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TH AT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM MYASTHENIA , A GRAVE DISEASE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS BUSY LOOKING AFTER HIS FATHER AND ACCORDINGLY THE REQUIRED DETAILS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. THE ASSESSE E HAD SUBMITTED PARTY-WISE DETAILS OF EXPENSES BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE A SSESSEE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT HE WOULD BE ASKED TO FILE FURTHER DETAILS AND EVIDENCES BUT NO SUCH DETAILS WERE ASKED AND THEREFORE, IT WAS BE ING REQUESTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE STATING TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO. 3. I HAVE PERUSED THE RECORDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATER CA REFULLY. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES IN T HE ABSENCE OF ITA NO.7716/M/10 A.Y:04-05 3 BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT COULD NOT FURNISH THE NECESSARY DETAILS AS HE WAS BUSY TAKING CARE/LOOKING AFTER HIS FATHER WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM A GRAVE DISEASE. ASSESSEE FILED DETAIL S OF EXPENSES BEFORE CIT(A) WHO AS PER ASSESSEE DID NOT CALL FOR ANY FU RTHER DETAILS. IT HAD ACCORDINGLY BEEN REQUESTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E FILED MAY BE ADMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I AD MIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN MY VIE W IS NECESSARY FOR ARRIVING AT A FAIR DECISION IN THE MATTER. I ACCORDING LY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.12.2011. SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 21.12.2011. JV. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.