IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 774/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) M/S. SKY ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. 247, MHATRE HOUSE, BEHIND RAIKAR CHAMBERS, GOWANDI (E), MUMBAI-400 088 / VS. DY. CIT-10(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M. K. MARG, MUMBAI ./ ! ./PAN/GIR NO. ( ' /APPELLANT ) : ( #$' / RESPONDENT ) ' % & / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JITENDRA JAIN #$' % & / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. L. PERUMAL ' ( % ) * / DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2014 +,-. % ) * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.01.2014 / O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE LD. CIT(A)-22, MUMBAI DATED 25.02.2011, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PAS SED U/S.144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2006-07. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVING HEARD ON RECORD AND PER USED. IN THE APPEAL SO FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 11 GROUNDS AGAINST T HE DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THE A.O. HAS DISALLO WED THESE EXPENSES BY PASSING THE EX PARTE ORDER U/S.144, THE ORDER OF A.O. WAS UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FILED WITH RESPE CT TO THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMEN TS PLACED ON RECORD: 2 ITA NO. 774/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) M/S. SKY ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT SR. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. 1 AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS 1-15 2 TAX AUDIT REPORT 16-40 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME AND COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME 41-42 4 RETURN FORM IN ITR 6 43-77 5 LETTER DATED 30.10.2009 FILING DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(A) 78-91 6 NOTICE DATED 16.11.2010 ISSUED DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS 92-92B 7 REMAND REPORT DATED 18.01.2011 93 8 LETTER DATED 24.02.2011 FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) STATING THE REASONS FOR NOT ATTENDING THE HEARINGS 94 9 AFFIDAVIT OF MR. ABHAY JOSHI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, WHO WAS ATTENDING TO THE TAX MATTERS OF THE ASSESSE E 95-98 10 AFFIDAVIT OF MR. SUDHIR MHATRE, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY 99-100 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE DOCUMENT S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES VIS--VIS THE DE TAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE SO INCURRED. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAI M OF EXPENSES, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO REVERT THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR D ECIDING AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE A.O. HAS PAS SED THE EX PARTE ORDER WHEREIN THE CLAIM OF ALL THESE EXPENDITURE WERE DECLINED BECAUS E OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. ALL THESE EVIDENCES GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE, WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE CONSIDERING THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAME AS BUSINES S EXPENSES. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. /. )0 (1 /) % 2% 345 67 8 ) % ) 9: ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 08, 2 014 SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (R. C. SHARMA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' ;/ MUMBAI; <( / DATED : 08.01.2014 3 ITA NO. 774/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) M/S. SKY ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. VS. DY. CIT .(../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$' / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' =) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. ' =) / CIT - CONCERNED 5. @ A #)(B1 , * B1. , ' ; / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. A C D / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ' ; / ITAT, MUMBAI