MANSOOR HUSAIN KHAN, MUMBAI V. ITO 11 (1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 996/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55626 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K B MENON
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.996/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 MR MANSOOR HUSAIN KHAN, .. APPELLANT C/O. N. VARMA & ASSOCIATES, 56, B WING, MITTAL TOWER, 210, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21. PA NO.AACPK 3687 M VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 11(1)(2) .. RESPONDEN T AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: K.GOPAL, FOR THE APPELLANT P.K.B.MENON , FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 4.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 -10-2011 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HAS CAL LED INTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 20 TH NOVEMBER, 2009, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE SHORT ISSUE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION OF RS.3,69,502 UNDER THE I.T.A NO.996/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 2 HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF CONN OR PROPERTY BY DETERMINING GROSS ANNUAL VALUE ON ESTIMATE BASIS. 3. LEARNED COUNSEL POINTS OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION WAS MADE, THOUGH ON ESTIMATE BASIS, AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE DETAILS AND E VIDENCES ABOUT MUNICIPAL VALUATION. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW OBT AINED DETAILS ABOUT THE SAID MUNICIPAL VALUATION, AND COPY OF THE SAME WAS FILED BEFORE US. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY KINDLY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THE ASSESSEE IS NOW ABLE TO PRODUCE. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT OPPOSE T HE PRAYER VERY MUCH BUT RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON ANNUAL VALUE OF THE PROPER TY, IN THE LIGHT OF MUNICIPAL VALUATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO, THE A SSESSING OFFICER WILL GIVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORD ER. WE DIRECT SO. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OCTOBER, 2011 SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 19 TH OCTOBER, 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),3 MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,XI , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH B MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI