Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI
सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 03.11.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee on 28.10.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-II, Thane dated 27.6.2013 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 confirming disallowance of Rs. 2,06,621/- out of 1) Petrol & Toll Expenses; (2) Travelling Expenses; (3) Business presentation; (4) Lodging Expenses; (5) Hotel Expenses and (6) Gifts and Prize. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 14,87,967/- on account of commission paid to Shri Narendra Pandit.”
2. Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee, deviating from the grounds raised in the appeal, submitted that this appeal needs to be remanded to the file of the AO / CIT (A) for fresh adjudication. In support of the same, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the order of the CIT (A) dated 27.6.2013 and submitted that the same is an exparte order and the same was made in the assessee’s name with Ambarnath (E) address. Bringing our attention to the order of the AO dated 24.12.2010, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Kalyan address is the proper one. When the questions were raised by the Bench about the source of the Ambarnath (E) address and when the said address was demonstrated to the AO relying on the contents of Form No.35 filed before the CIT (A), Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned the fact of change of address back to Kalyan address was communicated vide letter dated 29.5.2012, but the same was ignored by the Ld CIT (A) and proceeded to send the notices to Ambarnath (E) address and made the impugned order on the same. The fact is that the assessee never received the notices issued by the CIT (A) and therefore, the order of the CIT (A) was adjudicated without the assessee’s representative. In the light of these developments, Ld Counsel for the assessee argues for remanding this appeal for fresh adjudication with a direction to permit the appeal to file the relevant papers which may become additional evidence in a legal parlance.
3. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the relevant material placed before us, we find the AO made assessment of Rs.30,38,378/- against the returned income of Rs. 13,43,790/-. Most of the additions are ad-hoc in nature for want of papers and supporting evidences. The same were confirmed by the CIT (A) in the exparte adjudication. Considering the specific facts of this case, we are of the opinion, the proper representation is missing from the assessee’s side for one reason or other. It is in the interest of justice that this matter should be remanded to the file of the AO with the liberty to the assessee to file papers / documents / evidences, if any, in support of the claim. AO is directed to entertain the same and make the assessment afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th November, 2016. (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 11.11.2016 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.