Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER A Y: 2010-11) Towers Watson Risk Consulting The Deputy Commissioner of Pvt Ltd, Income Tax, Range 8(3), (Tower Watson India Pvt Ltd.), Aayakar Bhavan , M.K. Road, Solitre Corporate Park, Bldg, Mumbai-400020 Vs. No.5, 1st Floor, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400093 PAN : AAACG2955K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. V. Justine Sr DR Date of hearing 01.11.2016 Date of pronouncement 01 .11.2016 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) is directed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of income tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai dated 20/1/2014 for assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised has solitary grounds of appeal that Commissioner (Appeals) erred and failed to consider the submission and that the mismatch on account of AIR entries of Rs.602628/- has been wrongly added to the income of the assessee.
2. The briefs facts of the case are that Assessee Company engaged in the business of Insurance Consultant and Actuarial services, filed its return of income for relevant assessment year on 30 September 2010 declaring total income of Rs.5,06,58,750/-. The assessment was completed on 21 February 014 under section 143(3). The AO while framing re-assessment order made the addition on account of mismatch of professional receipt appearing in Form 26 AS. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the action of assessing officer was confirmed. Thus, further appeal was preferred before Tribunal.
When appeal came up hearing on 01.11.2017, the representative of the assessee filed an application for seeking adjournment on the ground that they are compiling the documents for preparation of the case. Perusal of the record shows that the present appeal was filed in 2014and the assessee has not filed the documents for almost for three years. The assessee’s grounds of appeal consist of the plea that ld CIT(A) failed to consider the submissions of the assessee. The person who came with adjournment application was not competent to appear before Tribunal. Considering the smallness of the issue the application for adjournment was rejected. The appeal was considered on merit.
4. The ld DR submits that the contention of the assessee in the appeal is that they were not given opportunity and liberty to prove their contention before the assessing officer as well as before CIT(A) and that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the file of AO for deciding the issue afresh. 2
We have heard the learned DR the revenue and perused the material available on record. Considering the submissions of ld DR and the smallness of the grounds of Appeal. This ground of appeal is restored to the file of assessing officer to decide the issues afresh in accordance with law but subject to deposit a cost of Rs. 2000/- in the account of the revenue. Needless to say that the assessing officer shall grant proper opportunity and to share all the AIR information in his office with the assessee, before deciding the issue. The assessee is also directed to fully cooperate and provide all information to the assessee officer and not to seek adjournment without any valid reasons.
In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.