SHOBHAGADEVI, MUMBAI V. ITO-19(3)(3), MUMBAI

MA 221/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0572 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR MENON

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) G' BENCH , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN , HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA.NO. 221 / MUM /2020 [ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO. 81 /MUM/201 9 (A.Y: 2010 - 11) ] SMT SHOBHAGA DEVI AMRITLAL JAIN 56/72, ROOM NO. 6 DURGADEVI STREET, ASMA BUILDING MUMBAI - 400 004 PAN: ADLPJ7969H V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(3)(3) ROOM NO. 224, MATRU MANDIR TARDEV ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHAVAL SHAH DE PARTMENT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MENON DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03 .02 .202 1 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL IT WAS EXPLAINE D THAT THE QUANTUM OF PURCHASE S TAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) IS INCORRECT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM SIXTEEN ALLEGED BOGUS PARTIES AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS .3,15,63,588/ - AS AGAINST .5,7 4,28,190/ - AS CONSIDERED INADVERTENTLY BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS STATED THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING THIS MA.NO. 221/MUM/2020 SMT SHOBHAGADEVI AMRITLAL JAIN 2 WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTUM OF PURCHASES AND THE DE TAILS WER E ALSO FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 2. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT UNFORTUNATELY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THESE DETAILS AND CONSIDERED INCORRECT AMOUNT OF PURCHASES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND EVEN BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) APPELLANT WAS NOT GRANT ED ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND IT WAS A EXPARTE ORDER BY THE LD.CIT(A) . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STATED THAT AS THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO VERIFY THESE FACTS. THUS , IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BE RECTIFIED IN SO FAR AS THESE FACTS ARE CONCERNED. 3. LD.DR SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, HE HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS. 4. ON HEARING BOTH SIDES AND VERIFYING THE RECORD , WE NOTICED THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE QUANTUM OF PURCHASES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS MA.NO. 221/MUM/2020 SMT SHOBHAGADEVI AMRITLAL JAIN 3 CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WE ALSO NOTICED THAT IN PAGE NO. 152 OF THE PAPER BOOK ASSESSEE IN FACT FILED A LETTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AGAINST DISPOSAL OF APPEAL EXPARTE BY HIM. WE ALSO NOTICED THAT A CHART SHOWING DIFFERENCE IN QUANTUM OF PURCHASES TAKEN IN ASSESSMENT ORDER VIS - - VIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS ALSO REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING. WE NOTICED THAT WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL THESE FACTS EVEN THOUGH PLACE D ON RECORD WERE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO CONSIDER . THEREFORE , FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFYING THE QUANTUM OF PURCHASES WE RECTIFY O U R ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF PURCHASES WHICH WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR COMPUTING THE DISALLOWANCE AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 03 .02.2021 AS PER RULE 34(4) OF ITAT RULES BY PLACING THE PRONOUNCEMENT LIST IN THE NOTICE BOARD SD/ - SD/ - ( N.K. PRADHAN ) (C.N. PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI / DATED 03 /02/2021 GIRIDHAR, SR.PS MA.NO. 221/MUM/2020 SMT SHOBHAGADEVI AMRITLAL JAIN 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUM