DILIP N. YAGNIK, MUMBAI V. ITO 12(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 99/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2911 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DILIP YAGNIK
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 I.T.A. NO.99/MUM/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO.99/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI DILIP N YAGNIK PROP YAGNIK & CO 102, BATHIA APARTMENTS, 1 ST FLOOR S.V. OAD, NEXT TO VIJAY SALES, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-92 VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, MUMBAI PAN :AAAPY0395G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI DILIP YAGNIK RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAKESH RANJAN DATE OF HEARING : 20-06-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-06-2016 O R D E R PER ASHWANI TANEJA, AM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-23, MUMBAI [HE REINAFTER CALLED CIT(A)]DATED 02-11-2010 PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSME NT ORDER DT 27-10-2008 U/S 143(3) FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2 I.T.A. NO.99/MUM/2011 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, SHRI DILIP YAGNIK APP EARED PERSONALLY AND SUBMITTED THAT HIS C.A. WAS OUT OF TOWN AND, THEREF ORE, HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO REPRESENT THE CASE. IT WAS FURTHER BRO UGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY HIM THAT VARIOUS EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THESE WERE SHOWN TO LD.C IT(A). BUT NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES HAVE PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCES . THE DISALLOWANCE HAVES BEEN MADE WRONGLY. DISALLOWANCE WITH REGARD TO GRA TUITY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AT ALL. OTHER DISALLOWANCES ARE ALSO INCORREC T ON FACTS AND LAW. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF N OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ALL THESE THINGS CAN BE SHOWN AGAIN TO SATISFY THE DOUB TS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR ALSO CLEARLY STATED THAT THIS CASE CAN BE SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION OF ALL TH E DETAILS AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED IN THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIE S AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK SHOWN BEFORE US. IN OUR OPINION, THE AS SESSEE DESERVES ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REMAND THE ISSUES BEFORE US BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THEIR EXAMINATION AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE SHALL SUBMIT ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE SAME ON OBJECTIVE BASIS AND SHALL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY DOUBTS WHICH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY HAV E. THE ASSESSEE SHALL ALSO EXTEND REQUISITE COOPERATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE US ARE SENT BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AND PASSING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3 I.T.A. NO.99/MUM/2011 5. AS A RESULT, ALL THESE GROUNDS AND ASSESSEES APPEA L ARE ALLOWED, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT :24 TH JUNE, 2016 PK/- COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE , D-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES