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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2366/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it useful and relevant to the adjudication. It directed the Assessing Officer to consider this evidence and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned the allocation of insurance costs and legal/professional fees to house property income. The assessee submitted a large paper book with additional evidence for the first time before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering and disposing of the assessee's grounds of appeal, particularly regarding the disallowance of legal and professional fees without documentary support and denial of natural justice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V. Raghavan
Hearing: 08.09.2016Pronounced: 23.09.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 08.09.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

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.”

2.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →