Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HONBLEShri Avesh Hanif Pitodia
O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 29, Bandra (E), Mumbai dated 27.12.2013 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: -
1. On the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which is based on new/additional evidence which has not been examined by the AO may kindly be set aside to allow the department to examine the evidence in greater detail and take a judicious view on the issues decided by (A.Y: 2008-09) Shri Avesh Hanif Pitodia the Ld.CIT(A) in the above order, especially with regard to payments being made to creditors out of proceeds earned from sale of the goods.”
2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”
3. As could be seen from the ground raised by the Revenue, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was challenged on the ground that the Ld.CIT(A) passed order based on new/additional evidence which has not been examined by the Assessing Officer and therefore the Revenue now wants this appeal to be set aside to the Assessing Officer for examination of the evidences in greater details.
In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to hear the Ld. DR and dispose off the appeal on merits.
Ld. DR before us submitted that assessee did not produce any information in the course of Assessment Proceedings and the addition was made by the Assessing Officer was completed exparte u/s. 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that assessee has produced evidence for the first time before the Ld.CIT(A) and these evidences were not examined by the Assessing Officer. The Ld.CIT(A) based on the new/additional evidences deleted the addition. Therefore, the matter requires to go back to the Assessing Officer for proper examination.
(A.Y: 2008-09) Shri Avesh Hanif Pitodia 6. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in Para No. 32 observed that assessee has filed a Paper Book containing the details of import consignments in different years along with the copies of import invoices, payment details through the bank account of M/s. Cell On Trades and the cash flow statement along with sale/purchases registers for three years. In Para No. 33 of his order he observed that the additional evidences submitted by the assessee was admitted and since these were crucial to decide the issue on hand, additional evidences were forwarded to the Assessing Officer and was asked to send the remand report after proper examination of the evidences. In Para No. 34 of his order the Ld.CIT(A) recorded that the remand report dated 22.02.2013 has been submitted by the Assessing Officer. Based on the submissions of the assessee and the additional evidences, remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer, the Ld.CIT(A) on proper examination deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted investments and unaccounted payments. Thus, there is no merit in the ground raised by the Revenue since the new/additional evidences have been sent to the Assessing Officer for examination and for sending the remand report to the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence the ground raised by the Revenue is rejected.
(A.Y: 2008-09) Shri Avesh Hanif Pitodia 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.