GURUDUTT KINI, MUMBAI V. ITO 21(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 969/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3260 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S JADHAVDR
• Assessee Lawyers: DHARAN V GANDHI
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI , ! ' , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, ITA NO.969/MUM/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MR. GURUDUTT KINI, B-1/143, TECHNOCRAT COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, TWIIN TOWER LANE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025 / VS. ITO-21(1)-4, MUMBAI / ASSESSEE / REVENUE P.A. NO. AHPPK5409D $ % & / ASSESSEE BY SHRI DHARAN V. GANDHI $ % & / REVENUE BY SHRI V.S. JADHAV-DR / DATE OF HEARING 18/01/2016 & / DATE OF ORDER: 18/01/2016 & / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/11/2014 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERTA INS TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,55,443/-. ITA NO.969/MUM/2015 MR. GURUDUTT KINI 2 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI DHARMVIR GANDHI, FILED CERTA IN DETAILS, WHICH COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER AS DURING THE RELEVANT TIME, DUE TO ILL HEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT U/S 1 44 OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI V.S. JADHAV, CONTENDED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHOULD BE GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.4,554,850/- , IN HIS RETURN FILED ON 31/10/2007, WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. LATER ON, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 23/09/2008 WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN, NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 25/09/2009, ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ALSO SERVE D UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO THE AFORESAID NOTICES, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FR AMED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. ON QUESTIONING BY THE BENCH FO R NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, DUE TO ILL HEALTH, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATIO N, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICE ISS UED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPLAI NED TO ITA NO.969/MUM/2015 MR. GURUDUTT KINI 3 BE A SMALL TAILOR. IN VIEW OF ARTICLE-265 OF CONST ITUTION OF INDIA ONLY DUE TAXES HAS TO BE LEVIED/COLLECTED, TH EREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE HEARD AG AIN WITH LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, IN SUPPOR T OF HIS CLAIM. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXA MINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 18/01/2016. SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ! ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 18/01/2016 F{X~{T? P.S / ! & $ )!*+ ,&+-* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '#$%& / THE APPELLANT 2. '(%& / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ) * ( '#$ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) ) * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -./ ' , ) '#$ ' 1 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /2 3$ / GUARD FILE. & / BY ORDER, (-# ' //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI