ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI V. METCRAFT CORPORATION, MUMBAI

ITA 8068/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3610 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUM BAI - B BENCH MUMBAI . .. . . .. . , / !'# !'# !'# !'# , ' ' ' ' BEFORE S/SH.B.R.MITTAL,JUDICIAL MEMBER & RAJEN DRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / . /. / . / ITA / // / 8068/M/2011, % & % & % & % &/ // / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 ACIT 25(2), BLDG.-C/11,1 ST FLOOR, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E) MUMBAI- 400051 % VS. M/S.METCRAFT ENGINEERING CORP. 601/602,SIDHARTH ARCADE,L T RD. BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400092 PAN: AAAFM1677M ( '( / // / APPELLANT) ( )*'( / RESPONDENT) '( + ' '( + ' '( + ' '( + ' / // / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJUNATH KARKIHALLI )*'( , + ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PANKAJ R TOPARANI % , -. % , -. % , -. % , -. / // / DATE OF HEARING : 18.04.2013 /0& , -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.04.2013 % % % % , 1961 1961 1961 1961 , , , , 254 254 254 254( (( (1 11 1) )) )' -9- ': ' -9- ': ' -9- ': ' -9- ': ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, A.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DT .23.09.2011PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-41,MUMBAI. FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO): 2. ASSESSEE-FIRM;ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTUR ING M S GALVANISED AND MS FORMS ETC.; FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.70,84,030/-.AO FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3)OF THE ACT,ON 31.12. 2010, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.87, 74,190/-. 2.1. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE FIRST APPEAL AUTHORITY (FAA).DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS C ERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO WHICH WERE CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FA A.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM,FAA ALLOWED RELIEF ABOUT VAT PAYMENT . 2.2. RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE FAA HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFOR E US BY THE AO,AS STATED EARLIER.BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT FAA HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A(3)OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES ,1962 (RULES). AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR)FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT EVIDENCE ABOUT PAYMENT OF VAT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE AO AND SAME WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE FAA FOR THE FIRST TIME.HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION, IF MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO FILE OF THE AO. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE AO WAS THAT THE FAA HAD ADMITTED NEW MATERIAL REGAR DING PAYMENT OF VAT AND AO HAD NO CHANCE TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF AR AND DR WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER SHOULD RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO.HE IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ; -< % ;- . , =>, )0!% ' ?@ , !- AB. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH APRIL, 2013 . ': , /0& ' C D% 18 )B , 2013 0 , 9 H SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . .. . ) ( !'# !'# !'# !'# / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' ' ' ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, D% /DATE: 18.04.2013 TNMM ': ': ': ': , ,, , )-I )-I )-I )-I J'I&- J'I&- J'I&- J'I&-/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / '( 2. RESPONDENT / )*'( 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / K L 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / K L 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / IM9 )-% , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ 9 N *I- )- // TRUE COPY// ':% / BY ORDER, O /A ! DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI