Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ramit Kochar
आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28/05/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, deleting the penalty of Rs.10,25,125/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).
During hearing, Shri Raman Mani, ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that the quantum appeal has been allowed by the Tribunal, therefore, the penalty may be deleted. The ld.counsel also produced the order of the Tribunal (ITA No.235/Mum/2013). On the other hand, Shri Rajat Mittal, ld. DR, defended the penalty imposed by the Ld. Assessing Officer.
2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the assertion of the ld. counsel for the assessee, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 05/12/2016 for ready reference and analysis:-
“This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 4.10.2012 pertaining to A.Y.2006-07.
2. The issue raised Ground No.1 is with regard to upholding the disallowance of bad debts written off of Rs.30,57,413/- by CIT(A).
At the outset, Shri F V Irani, Sr. Standing Counsel drew our attention to the application dated 29.11.2006 wherein the Bench has been requested to admit the additional supporting documentary evidences which are necessary and pertinent for the purpose of adjudicating the issue involved in the ground No.1 raised by the assessee.
After hearing both the parties on the issue of admission of additional evidences, we find that the additional evidence as filed by the assessee has substantial bearings on the issue involved and raised by the assessee. We, therefore, in the interest of justice inclined to admit the same. We further find that these evidences are required to be examined and evaluated at the end of the AO. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the AO for appreciation of evidences as may be filed by the assessee and adjudication of the issue denovo as per facts and law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.”
We find that before us the ld. counsel for the assessee claimed that the quantum appeal has been allowed in favour of the assessee. However, we find that the additional evidence, filed by the assessee was admitted and restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for appreciation of evidence and thereafter for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, meaning thereby, the addition has not been deleted and merely restored to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer. Since, the quantum appeal of the assessee has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal, in all fairness, we are of the view that the penalty appeal also deserves to be sent to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer as the same will be dependent upon the outcome of the quantum appeal, therefore, this penalty appeal of the Revenue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard, resultantly, this appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes only. This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 26/04/2017. Sd/- Sd/-
(Ramit Kochar) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 26/04/2017 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /�नजी स�चव आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :