BERNHARD SCHULTE SHIPPING (INDIA ) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 10(3), MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee on 10.4.2012 is against the order of the CIT (A)-22, Mumbai dated 9.2.2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. In this appeal assessee raised two main grounds which read as under:- “1. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering and not disposing off the Ground no.1 (iii) of your appellant in his appellate order dated Feb.9.2012. 2. (i) The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering and not disposing off the Ground no.2(ii) of your appellants. (ii) The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in stating vide paragraphs 3.2 at page 3 of his order, that during the course of appellant proceeeings it was submitted that AO had never asked for any bills and vouchers for legal and professional fees. Further, appellant had also requested for adequate opportunity of being heard but was not provided so, when in fact the lapse on the part of the AO in doing so, was brought the CIT (A). (iii) The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in his statement at paragraph 3.2 at page 3 of his order by not considering and not disposing off the ground no.2 (ii) of your appellants which specifically state that “the learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in disallowing the above amount of Rs. 14,94,176/- without asking any documentary support and hence, denied your appellants natural justice.”

At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to above grounds and submitted that the issue raised in the grounds relates to the allocation