Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA
O R D E R
Per ASHWANI TANEJA, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [hereinafter called CIT(A)] dated 15-04-2014 passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 16-12-2011 for A.Y. 2009-10 on the following grounds:
1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT-A-34, has erred in disallowing Rs.12,72,9851- on account of Bogus Purchases and Rs. 1,25,470/- as agricultural income by overlooking the fact that the same where properly explained along with evidences during the appellate proceedings before Hon. CIT-A.”
The assessee, in the course of appellate proceedings filed modified / additional grounds of appeal
, which are as under: “Original Ground has been split into two separate grounds as under;
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT-A-34, has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,72,985/-on account of Bogus Purchases by overlooking the details furnished. 2. on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT-A-34, has erred in denying the exemption in respect of Rs.1,25,470/-, shown as agricultural income. Additional Grounds: (These were raised before Hon. CIT- A. However, inadvertently, skipped in making the appeal before Hon. ITAT.)
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT-A-34, has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 28,339/- in respect of the Cash Balance, without properly appreciating the facts placed on records.
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble CIT-A-34, has erred in making ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.58,045/- out of the Business Expenses without making comparison with the expenses of the preceding assessment “
During the course of hearing, it was stated at the outset by the Ld. Counsel that in this case time allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) was very short and therefore, complete evidences could not be arranged and filed. The Ld. Counsel moved petition u/r 29 for filing additional evidences. It is noted from the additional evidences that the assessee has arranged confirmation from suppliers after making efforts which were not available at the time of assessment and first appellate proceedings. The assessee has also prepared reconciliation statements which could not be submitted before the lower authorities and submitted that these documents are very crucial for deciding this issue.
Per contra, the Ld. DR fairly agreed that this appeal may be sent back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
We have gone through the orders passed by the lower authorities as well as the petition filed by the assessee u/r 29 for admission of additional evidence. After taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it appropriate to send all the grounds raised before us back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the assessee shall furnish all the details and evidences as may be directed by the Assessing Officer from time to time and as may be considered appropriate by the assessee. The assessee is free to raise all the legal and factual issues before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall decide these issues raised before us by way of the aforesaid grounds after considering all the materials as may be brought before him by the assessee. Thus, with these directions, these grounds are sent back to the file of the Assessing Officer and may be treated as allowed, for statistical purpose.
Order was pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of hearing.