Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
अपीलाथ- 1ारा/ Appellant by : Shri Vinod Bhaskaran .ितवाद0 1ारा/Respondent by : Shri Raja B. Singh सुनवाई क2 ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 16/03/2021 घोषणा क2 ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 21/05/2021 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [hereinafter referred as ‘the ld. CIT(A)] dated 11.07.2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
The brief facts of the case as emanating from the records are: The assessee/respondent is engaged in the business of Sales and Services of आअसं. 5900/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2011-12) (A.Y.2011-12)
automobiles. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring net loss of Rs. 3,23,31,892/- and claimed carry forward of the same. During scrutiny assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to substantiate the loss claimed as the relevant documents were allegedly destroyed/lost in fire at the premises of the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected assessee’s claim of loss as well as claim of carry forward of losses. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 01.03.2014, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee furnished additional evidences before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO on the evidences filed by the assessee. On the basis of remand report dated 02.07.2018, the CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee. Now the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the relief granted by the CIT(A) to the assessee.
Shri Vinod Bhaskaran representing the Department submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidences filed by the assessee and allowing loss to the extent of Rs.1, 67,80,826/- and further allowing the same to be carry forward. The stand of the assessee before the AO for non-production of documents is inconsistent with the reply filed by the assessee in remand proceedings. The DR prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) and upholding the assessment order.
On the contrary, Shri Raja B. Singh appearing on behalf of the assessee strongly supported the order of CIT(A) and prayed for dismissing the appeal of Revenue. The ld. AR submitted that there was major fire incident at the premises of the assessee wherein substantial records were destroyed. Subsequently, the assessee could recover some documents, the same were filed by the assessee
आअसं. 5900/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2011-12) (A.Y.2011-12) before the CIT(A). Further, the Director of assessee-company Shri Sumaya Chandan, suffered brain stroke and was in Coma. The assessee had furnished evidences before the FAA to substantiate fire incident and medical condition of the Director. The evidence filed before CIT(A) include certificate issued by Dy. Chief Fire Officer, Mumbai Fire Brigade and photographs to show that there was fire incident in the premises of the assessee. The assessee had also furnished medical certificate to prove critical illness of the Director of the assessee. The additional evidence filed by the assessee were admitted by the CIT(A) after seeking remand report from the AO. The AO verified the additional evidences and on the basis of the comments of the AO in remand report, the CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee and allowed assessee’s claim of loss to the extent of Rs. 1,67,80,826/- as against the claim of Rs. 3,23,31,892/-. The AR submitted that there is no contradiction in the submissions at the time of remand proceedings and submissions made before the AO during assessment proceedings.
Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. Undisputedly, the assessee could not produce documentary evidence to substantiate loss of Rs. 3,23,31,892/- claimed in the return of income. In First Appellate Proceedings, the assessee furnished additional evidence and the reasons explaining for non- furnishing the evidences before the AO. The CIT(A) in accordance with the provisions of Rule 46A forwarded the additional evidences to the AO and sought his comments. In the remand report, the AO after verifying the documents confirmed that there was fire in the premises of the assessee. Further, the AO after examining bills, vouchers and ledger accepted part claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) partly accepted assessee’s claim of loss on the basis of remand report
आअसं. 5900/मुं/2018 (िन.व.2011-12) (A.Y.2011-12) and allowed carry forward of losses on the basis of assessment orders for the preceding AYs.
We find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal of Revenue is without any merit, hence, the same is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 21st day of May, 2021.
Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai, 6दनांक/Dated: 21/05/2021 SK, PS .ितिल�प अ7े�षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : .ितिल�प अ7े�षत .ितिल�प अ7े�षत .ितिल�प अ7े�षत 1. अपीलाथ-/The Appellant , 2. .ितवाद0/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु8(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु8 CIT 5. �वभागीय .ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड; फाइल/Guard file.