ITO 24(2)(4), V. MANU K. SHARMA,

MA 96/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3648 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, G , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI N. K.BILLAIYA, AM MA NO.96/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1388/MUM/2011) ASST.YEAR 2006-2007 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(2) MUMBAI. / VS. SHRI MANU K.SHARMA 31 MANISH NAGAR SHOPPING CENTRE FOUR BUNGLOWS, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI 400 058. PAN : AAFPS0730C. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) /REVENUE BY : SHRI C.W.ANGOLKAR ! '#$ /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUBHASH CHHAJED / DATE OF HEARING : 30.10.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2015. / O R D E R PER N.K.BILLAIYA (AM) : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE REVENUE IS PR EFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1388/M UM/2011, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007, ORDER DATED 03.09.201 4. 2. WITH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE REVENUE HAS ALLEGED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING TH E ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH RELATED TO THE A CCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. AND HAVE CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON. WE DO NOT FIND MA NO.96/MUM/2015 SHRI MANU K.SHARMA 2 ANY FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE. FIRSTLY , THE DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH W ERE NOT FILED SUO MOTO BY THE A SSESSEE, AND SECONDLY, THE DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WERE TRANSMITTED TO THE A .O. CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT, AND AFTER RECEIVING THE REMAND REPOR T, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE. 4. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DI SMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015. !' # $ SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) SD/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! MUMBAI; ! DATED : 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015. LUBHNA* (!$)*+*,$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ' ( //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ! / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. ) / CIT(A) - 31, MUMBAI 5. ',# ((-. , -. , ! / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. #01 2 / GUARD FILE.