ARUNKUMAR JAYANTILAL MUCHHALA ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

Without prejudice to the above grounds, the CIT (A) has erred in confirming addition to the extent of Rs. 22,55,000/- on account of amounts alleged to have been received by M/s. Shiv Sai Developers from Muchhala Magic Land Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the correct facts of the case that the said amount is received on current account by the said concern from the company and further that in any case the said amount received by the concern was not for the benefit of the appellant.

In view of the above, the appellant respectfully submits that the impugned addition of Rs. 39,75,937/- is not justified and the same deserves to be deleted. The appellant, therefore, prays that the impugned addition may please be deleted or any other relief as deemed fit may please be allowed to the appellant.

All the grounds raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions on account deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, we have to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order.

We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgements cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we noticed that the assessee is an Individual. Assessment for the assessment year 2006-07 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 30.08.2011, determining total income at rs.48,61,170/- which included addition of Rs.35,79,937/- within the scope of section 2(22)(e). The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) but the same was dismissed.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before us, we noticed that in first round of litigation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT the, Mumbai, vide its order dated 12.04.2017 in had set aside the assessment proceedings to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh.

Now before us Ld. AR has filed paper book wherein it has been categorically mentioned that all the documents were filed before the revenue authorities except document No. 6 & 8 which is being filed for the first time and had requested to admit these documents under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 as additional evidence and explained the reasons as to why these documents could not be filed at an appropriate stage. Thus hearing the parties and considering the request of the assessee, we found that these documents are vital and necessary to adjudicate the controversy and goes to the roots of the case, therefore we admit the documents under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963.

Since, we have admitted the documents as additional evidence therefore without going into the merits of the claim, we of the view that matter needs to be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for factual verification of the above documents and then to decide the said issue afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, with these direction we order accordingly.

Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (A.Y: 2007-08)

As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to for the A.Y 2006-07 (except variance in days of delay) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal