MRS. SHEETAL GOKUL PARIKH, MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 30(2)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 918/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0390 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SMITA NAIR
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 148; 144; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 918/MUM/2020 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, 33, Ghanshyam Dube Chawl No. 2, Deep Narayan Dube Road, Pragatinagar, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400068. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(2)(6), Earlier Ward 24(2)(2), Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AIZPP 6142 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dipen Tanna, AR Revenue by : Mrs. Smita Nair, DR Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 05/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee has been preferred against the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], for assessment year 2007-08, raising following grounds: “1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of the case u/s 148 by the Ld. A Officer as the reassessment is bad in law. Therefore, the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside. 2) a) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order passed by 147/144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving an opportunity to the assessee to furnish details as the notice for reassessment was not served to the assessee. b) The appellant prays that therefore the order passed by the Hon Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside as it is against the principles of law and natural justice. 3) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing an ex- 1961. b) Your Appellant contends that the order passed under section 144 is bad in law and needs to be set aside. 4) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making additions of Rs. 21,51,264/ account of unexplained Sundry creditors being 50% of total sundry creditors as at 31.03.2007 of Rs. 43,02,528/ b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of unexplained sundry creditors is an ad reasonable groun Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of the case u/s 148 by the Ld. A Officer as the reassessment is bad in law. Therefore, the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be 2) a) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the order passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 147/144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving an opportunity to the assessee to furnish details as the notice for reassessment was not served to the assessee. b) The appellant prays that therefore the order passed by the Hon Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside as it is against the principles of law and natural justice. 3) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in -parte order under section 250 of the Income Ta b) Your Appellant contends that the order passed under section 144 is bad in law and needs to be set aside. 4) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making additions of Rs. 21,51,264/- in the hands of the appellant o account of unexplained Sundry creditors being 50% of total sundry creditors as at 31.03.2007 of Rs. 43,02,528/-. b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of unexplained sundry creditors is an ad-hoc amount without any reasonable ground or evidence. Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 2 The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the reopening of the case u/s 148 by the Ld. Assessing Officer as the reassessment is bad in law. Therefore, the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be 2) a) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 147/144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving an opportunity to the assessee to furnish details as the notice for reassessment was not b) The appellant prays that therefore the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside as it is 3) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in parte order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, b) Your Appellant contends that the order passed under section 144 4) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained Sundry creditors being 50% of total sundry b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of hoc amount without any c) The appellant prays that the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer be deleted. 5) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making additions of Rs. 2,14,003/ account of un claimed of Rs.10,70,019/ b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of unexplained expenses is an ad ground or evidence. c) The appellant prays that the Assessing Officer be deleted. 6) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee since no notices fixing the date of the hearing were served upon the assessee either physically or electronically upon the assessee, therefore the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside. 2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not represent either before the Ld. Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) due to non therefore both the authorities have passed of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and section 250 Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh c) The appellant prays that the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer be deleted. 5) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in making additions of Rs. 2,14,003/- in the hands of the appellant on account of unexplained Expenditure being 20% of total expenses claimed of Rs.10,70,019/-. b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of unexplained expenses is an ad-hoc amount without any reasonable ground or evidence. c) The appellant prays that the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer be deleted. 6) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee since no notices fixing the date of the hearing were served upon the assessee either physically or electronically upon the assessee, therefore the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is liable to be set aside.” At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the e could not represent either before the Ld. Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-receipt of the notices and therefore both the authorities have passed ex-parte tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and section 250 Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 3 c) The appellant prays that the additions made by the learned 5) a) The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in in the hands of the appellant on explained Expenditure being 20% of total expenses b) Your Appellant contends that the addition made on account of hoc amount without any reasonable additions made by the learned 6) The Hon"ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing the order without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee since no notices fixing the date of the hearing were served upon the assessee either physically or electronically upon the assessee, therefore the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of At the outset, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the e could not represent either before the Ld. Assessing Officer receipt of the notices and orders u/s 144 tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) and section 250 of the Act respectively. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is willing to file all the documents in support of its claim of the expenses debited in profit and loss accounts and sundry creditors appearing in balance sheet. Accordingly, he submitte the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. 3. On the contrary, the Ld. DR did not seriously object to the above request of the Ld. counsel of the assessee. 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee filed return of income on 31. ₹2,77,940/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was for scrutiny and the statutory notices were issued to the assessee and sent by the registered post at the assessee. However, same Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh the Act respectively. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is willing to file all the documents in support of its claim of the expenses debited in profit and loss accounts and sundry creditors appearing in balance sheet. Accordingly, he submitte the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. On the contrary, the Ld. DR did not seriously object to the above request of the Ld. counsel of the assessee. We have heard rival submissions of the parties dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of . The return of income filed by the assessee was for scrutiny and the statutory notices were issued to the assessee nd sent by the registered post at the address provided by the assessee. However, same were returned un-served and therefore, Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 4 the Act respectively. The Ld. counsel submitted that the assessee is willing to file all the documents in support of its claim of the expenses debited in profit and loss accounts and sundry creditors appearing in balance sheet. Accordingly, he submitted that order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. On the contrary, the Ld. DR did not seriously object to the We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. The assessee .2007 declaring total income of . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were issued to the assessee address provided by the served and therefore, the Assessing Offic Subsequently, notices were issued by the Assessing Officer raising queries in respect of return of income. However, no reply was furnished by the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment as best judgment assessment amount of the sundry creditors shown as on worked out to ₹20,00,645/ worked out to ₹2,14,003/ 4.1 Aggrieved, the asse however, despite notifying on four occasions made and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer: 4. DECISION: I have considered the facts of the cas assessment order and the grounds of appeal. The Remand report received from the AO was forwarded to the appellant affording her an opportunity of being heard and to submit her rejoinder to the Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh the Assessing Officer served the notices through Subsequently, notices were issued by the Assessing Officer raising queries in respect of return of income. However, no reply was furnished by the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment based on the material availa as best judgment assessment, after making addition for 50% of the amount of the sundry creditors shown as on 31.03.2006 which was 20,00,645/- and 20% of the expenses which was 2,14,003/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), despite notifying on four occasions, no compliance was made and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer: DECISION: I have considered the facts of the cas assessment order and the grounds of appeal. The Remand report received from the AO was forwarded to the appellant affording her an opportunity of being heard and to submit her rejoinder to the Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 5 er served the notices through affixture. Subsequently, notices were issued by the Assessing Officer raising queries in respect of return of income. However, no reply was furnished by the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer available on record after making addition for 50% of the 31.03.2006 which was and 20% of the expenses which was ssee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), no compliance was made and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer: DECISION: I have considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and the grounds of appeal. The Remand report received from the AO was forwarded to the appellant affording her an opportunity of being heard and to submit her rejoinder to the Remand Report. However, in spite of being granted severa opportunities vide issue of notice on the address given in the Form 35, the appellant did not respond. Accordingly, the appeal is decided on the basis of facts available on record. Date of issue of notice 26.02.2014 14.03.2014 16.10.2019 07.11.2019 4.1 In the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR 461, it was held that “... appeal does not mean merely filing of pursuing it." 4.2 In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009] body or authority, wh parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial pronouncement quoting decisio Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 260, is reproduced below: "Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party remain present. every tribunal Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Remand Report. However, in spite of being granted severa opportunities vide issue of notice on the address given in the Form 35, the appellant did not respond. Accordingly, the appeal is decided on the basis of facts available on record. Date of issue of notice Date of hearing Remarks 12.03.2014 No attendance 21.03.2014 No attendance 22.10.2019 No attendance 14.11.2019 No attendance In the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR held that ... appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol v/s. Union of India [Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009] clearly states, that every court judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a matter between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial pronouncement rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai quoting decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 260, is reproduced below: "Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which possesses." Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 6 Remand Report. However, in spite of being granted several opportunities vide issue of notice on the address given in the Form- 35, the appellant did not respond. Accordingly, the appeal is decided Remarks No attendance No attendance No attendance No attendance In the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharya reported at 118 ITR appeal but effectively In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of case of M/s Chemipol v/s. Union of India [Central clearly states, that every court judicial matter between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default. For the sake of reference, the relevant extract of the judicial rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai Court in case of Nandramdas "Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which 4.3 The principle that every court that is to decide on a matter of dispute, inherently possesses the power to d default, has been upheld by P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC case, the Apex Court has held as und "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a list between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in the party is not present, the body is under no obligation to keep the pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or for matter of a judicial or complainant, therefore, the court will be will without its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power cause being shown for the 4.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also laid down the proposition that absent and the Tribunal on facts appellant is not interested in prosecuting the exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution. 4.5 The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (ITR No.2006/Del/2011 dt. 19.12.2001) in the case of Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh The principle that every court that is to decide on a matter of inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case for default, has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar (1984 (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of New India Assurance vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242. In the latter case, the Apex Court has held as under :- "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to between two parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss a case in default. Where a case is called up for hearing and the party is not present, the court or the judicial or quasi body is under no obligation to keep the matter pending before it or to pursue the matter on behalf of the complainant who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or for matter of a judicial or quasi judicial body. In the absence of the complainant, therefore, the court will be will without its jurisdiction the complaint for non prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good se being shown for the non appearance of the complainant. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also laid down the proposition that where the appellant in spite of notice is persistently absent and the Tribunal on facts of the case is of the view that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, it can in exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (ITR No.2006/Del/2011 dt. 19.12.2001) in the case of Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT had Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 7 The principle that every court that is to decide on a matter of ismiss the case for the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. (Supp) SCC 63 and the case of 242. In the latter "That every court or judicial body or authority, which has a duty to between two parties, inherently possesses the power to default. Where a case is called up for hearing and judicial or quasi-judicial matter pending before it or to who had instituted the proceedings. That is not the function of the court or for that quasi judicial body. In the absence of the complainant, therefore, the court will be will without its jurisdiction the complaint for non prosecution. So also, it would have and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good appearance of the complainant. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also laid down the where the appellant in spite of notice is persistently of the case is of the view that the appeal, it can in exercise its inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non- The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi (ITR No.2006/Del/2011 dt. Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. DCIT had dismissed appeal for non assessee was not interested in prosecuting of appeal. another decision in the case of Chadha Finlease Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No.3013/De|/2011 date of order 20.12.2011) the Hon'ble ITAT h dismissed the appeal for non 4.6 In a decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on High Court of Delhi had held that a given many opportunities just because that involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee for his negligence. When the assessee is non naturally be safely adduce evidence as it would expose 4.7 As noted above, the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being appeal is decided on the basis of 4.8 The Ground of appeal No. 1 is general in nature and is being duly considered in the main adjudication. Hence, the ground of appeal no. 1 is 4.9 The Ground of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 relate 21,51,264/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors and unexplained expenses of Rs. above claims the appellant did not produce course of Remand proceedings nor in th neither attended the proceedings to pursue the appeal in spite of Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh missed appeal for non-attendance at hearings, inferring that assessee was not interested in prosecuting of appeal. Thereafter in another decision in the case of Chadha Finlease Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No.3013/De|/2011 date of order 20.12.2011) the Hon'ble ITAT h appeal for non-attendance at hearings. In a decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. on 02.09.2011 (ITA No.798 of 2009), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that a negligent assessee should not be ny opportunities just because that quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee negligence. When the assessee is non-cooperative, it can ally be safely concluded that the assessee did not want to adduce evidence as it would expose falsity and lack of genuineness. As noted above, the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted adequate opportunities. Accordingly, the l is decided on the basis of -facts available on record. The Ground of appeal No. 1 is general in nature and is being considered in the main adjudication. Hence, the ground of is Dismissed. The Ground of appeal Nos. 2 & 3 relate to the addition of Rs. on account of unexplained sundry creditors and unexplained expenses of Rs. 2,14,003/-. However, to substantiate the above claims the appellant did not produce any evidence during the course of Remand proceedings nor in the appellate proceedings and neither attended the proceedings to pursue the appeal in spite of Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 8 hearings, inferring that Thereafter in another decision in the case of Chadha Finlease Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No.3013/De|/2011 date of order 20.12.2011) the Hon'ble ITAT had In a decision in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital 02.09.2011 (ITA No.798 of 2009), the Hon'ble negligent assessee should not be quantum of amount involved is high. Necessary course of action is to draw adverse inference; otherwise it would amount to give premium to the assessee cooperative, it can concluded that the assessee did not want to falsity and lack of genuineness. As noted above, the appellant has not pursued the appeal granted adequate opportunities. Accordingly, the facts available on record. The Ground of appeal No. 1 is general in nature and is being considered in the main adjudication. Hence, the ground of to the addition of Rs. on account of unexplained sundry creditors and . However, to substantiate the any evidence during the proceedings and neither attended the proceedings to pursue the appeal in spite of numerous opp interfere with the the addition of creditors and unexplained expenses of Ground of appeal nos. 2 & 3 is Dismissed. 4.2 Evidently, the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of any explanation from the assessee has upheld the additions/disall Ld. counsel of the assessee has submitted that the assessee interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) could not received by the assessee and therefore, no representati CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary evidence in support of claim of return of income filed. The Ld. counsel us that assessee woul appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of above facts and circumstances and the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh numerous opportunities. In view of the same, I find no infirmity to interfere with the disallowance made by the A.O. in his order. Hence the addition of ₹21,51,264/- on account of unexplained sundry creditors and unexplained expenses of Rs. 2,14,003/-is upheld. The Ground of appeal nos. 2 & 3 is Dismissed.” Evidently, the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of any explanation from the assessee has upheld the additions/disallowances Ld. counsel of the assessee has submitted that the assessee in prosecuting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) could not received by the assessee and therefore, no representation could be made before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary evidence in support of claim of return of income filed. The Ld. counsel has given undertaking would extend full co-operation for disposal of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of above facts and circumstances and the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 9 I find no infirmity to disallowance made by the A.O. in his order. Hence on account of unexplained sundry is upheld. The Evidently, the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of any explanation from owances. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is in prosecuting the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the notices sent by the Ld. CIT(A) could not received by the assessee on could be made before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee is willing to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary evidence in support of claim of given undertaking before operation for disposal of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In view of above facts and circumstances and the interest of the substantial justice, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in- dispute and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly decide the issue in dispute additional evidence or other documents etc. filed by the assessee. It is needless to mention that both the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer shall heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh estore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of the tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly decide the issue in dispute after taking into consideration, the additional evidence or other documents etc. filed by the assessee. It is needless to mention that both the assessee as well as the Assessing Officer shall be afforded adequate opportuni heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for ounced in the Court on 05/07/2022. Sd/- SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 10 estore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the necessary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of the tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly directed to after taking into consideration, the additional evidence or other documents etc. filed by the assessee. It is needless to mention that both the assessee as well as the afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for OM PRAKASH KANT) MEMBER Dated: 05/07/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh ITA No. 918/M/2020 11 Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai