ARBEE SHIPPING CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7819/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70945 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: CHAMPA PUROHIT
• Section: 37(1)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . ! , '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARO RA, AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 7819/MUM/2011 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 AREBEE SHIPPING CO. PVT.LTD., 3 RD FLOOR, IMPERIAL CHAMBERS, WILSON ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400009 % % % % / VS. THE ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI. ' '# ./ ( ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACA 0974C ( ') / APPELLANT ) .. ( *+') / RESPONDENT ) ') , '/ APPELLANT BY MS. CHAMPA PUROHIT *+') 7 , ' /RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.S.RANA % 7 8# / DATE OF HEARING : 05/09/2013 9 & 7 8# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/09/2013 ': / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL,J.M: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-4, MUMBAI DATED 08/08/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE MATTER IS COVERED BY THE ITAT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEEE FOR A.Y 2006-07, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ./ I.T.A. NO. 7819/MUM/2011 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 2 2. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED A GAINST THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-APPEARANCE ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEAR ING I.E. ON 4/08/2011. IT IS THE CASE OF LD. AR THAT THE MATTER RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.5 809/MUM/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 31/08/2010. SHE HAS PLACED A COPY OF THE SAI D ORDER. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER MAY BE R ESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) AS ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE A SSESSEE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). 4. THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT( A) RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (THE ACT). SIMILAR ISSUE AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION OF TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF A.Y 2006-07 WHERE SOME RELIEF WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEV ER, AS LD. CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID ORDER WHEN HE DECIDED THE A PPEAL. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONSIDER IT JUST AND PROPER TO RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE IMPUGNED APPE AL AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE TR IBUNAL. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/ 09/2013 . ': 7 & #' ; <%= 05/09/2013 7 > SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA) (I.P.BANSAL) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; <% DATED 05/09/2013 ./ I.T.A. NO. 7819/MUM/2011 ( % % % % & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 3 ': ': ': ': 7 77 7 *8?@ *8?@ *8?@ *8?@ A'@&8 A'@&8 A'@&8 A'@&8 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ') / THE APPELLANT 2. *+') / THE RESPONDENT. 3. B ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. B / CIT 5. @C> *8% , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. >D E / GUARD FILE. ' ' ' ':% :% :% :% / BY ORDER, +@8 *8 //TRUE COPY// F FF F / G G G G (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . % . SR. PS-VM