EBRAHIM ADAM KORADIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 13(3)(4), MUMBAI

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 07.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee on 23.7.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-24, Mumbai dated 25.03.2014 for the assessment year 2008-2009. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal and that too without appreciating fully and properly the facts of the case.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made of Rs. 87,042/-.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in verifying the assessee’s signatures on all documents executed with the Memon Cooperative Bank Ltd with the assessee’s signature as appearing in Memorandum of appeal and other letters / documents etc.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deducing that the assessee’s signature on all the documents executed with Memon Cooperative Bank Ltd and the assessee’s signature as appearing in the appeal filing documents, prima facie tally.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in neither checking the status update of the police complaint filed by the assessee against the benami account created in his name, nor calling for the investigation report of the police department.

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in not referring the signatures to a forensic lab for verification of the assessee’s signatures on all the documents executed with the Memon Cooperative Bank Ltd and the assessee’s signature as appearing in the appeal filing documents.”

2. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to represent its case. Since the solitary issue is involved, which relates to the addition of Rs. 87,042/-, with the help of the Ld DR for the Revenue, we proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in the following paras of this order.

3. The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 87,042/-, which is credited in the bank account with Memon Cooperative Bank Ltd. In this regard, assessee filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2006-07 vide dated 7.1.2016, wherein an identical addition of Rs. 11,50,800/- was made in the AY 2006-07 and the matter was eventually remanded to the file of the AO with certain directions vide para 2.1 of the said Tribunal’s order (supra). It is the request of the assessee that the issue raised in the present appeal may also be remanded to the file of the AO with identical directions.

4. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the contents of the said para 2.1 from the Tribunal’s order (supra) dated 7.1.2016, we find, the following are the relevant lines which read as under:- “2.1........In view of the above observations, I remand ......... to the file of the AO to examine the claim of the assessee and decide in accordance with law. AO is also directed as what is the outcome of the complaint filed by the assessee on 12.12.2008. The assessee is at liberty to furnish evidence..............for which due opportunity be provided to the assessee, thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”

5. From the above, we find, an identical issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal vide the said order dated 7.1.2016 (supra) and the matter was remanded to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the claim and decide the matter afresh as per the outcome of the assessee’s compliant. Considering the commonality of the issue involved in the present appeal, we are of the opinion, the matter is required to be remanded to the file of the AO with identical directions following the principle of consistency. We order accordingly. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.