PRATHAMESH DATTATRAYA SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 31(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

We observe from the grounds of appeal that the Assessee has also challenged the reopening of the assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, on the ground that the AO lacked jurisdiction in view of the alleged violation of Section 151A of the Act and the guidelines issued by the CBDT. However, at the time of hearing, the Assessee specifically did not press and withdrew the said ground. Therefore, the same required no adjudication and therefore is dismissed as not pressed.

Coming to the merits of the case, we observe from the orders passed by the authorities below that the addition of Rs.11,50,000/- made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. Commissioner is, more or less, based on the ground that though the Assessee had relied upon an agreement executed for providing technical know-how relating to the capital markets, however, the Assessee had failed to furnish a duly signed and stamped copy of the said agreement. 4. Before us, the Assessee prayed for leniency and sought one opportunity, being the last and final opportunity, to substantiate its claim by furnishing the relevant documents relating to the professional fees, including the duly signed and stamped agreement, relevant invoices and evidence of actual rendering of services.

The Ld. DR, though supported the orders passed by the authorities below, however, submitted that in case the Hon’ble Court

We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to afford one opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate its claimby furnishing the relevant documents, including the duly signed and stamped agreement, invoices, evidence of rendering of services and other ancillary documents etc., however, subject to depositing by the Assessee, a cost of Rs.11,000/- with the Revenue Department under the head “Other Receipts” within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and furnishing proof thereof before the AO.

We further clarifythat in case of any subsequent default or failure to comply with the aforesaid condition, the Assessee would not be entitled to any further leniency and, in that eventuality, the impugned order would stand sustained automatically.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for decision afresh, suffice it to say, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and subject to fulfilment of the aforesaid condition, without any delay or default.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical