CYRUS K PEDDER,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(2)-1, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7638/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 2016AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the documents produced by the assessee were not discussed in the lower authorities' orders. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's business loss of Rs. 3,13,708/- from goat trading was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that crucial evidence was not considered by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in disallowing business loss without considering the evidence produced by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Brijmohan Pooranmal
Hearing: 03.03.2016Pronounced: 20.07.2016

Assessee by: Shri Brijmohan Pooranmal Agarwal Department by: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnoo सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing: 03.03.2016 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement:20.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

The assessee has filed an appeal against the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:-

"1. The Learned Assessing Officer {The Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(2)(1), Mumbai} has erred in disallowing business loss amounting to Rs.3,13,708/-, erroneously holding that expenses are not incurred for business purposes of the appellant and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-33 has further erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer .” .M.14 A.Y.2009-10 3. The assessee has filed the return of income on 31.07.2009 declaring total income at Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short “the Act”) were issued and duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter the assessment of the assessee was concluded by declaring the income of assessee to the tune of Rs. 7,25,480/-. The assessing officer declined the trading loss to the tune of appeals 3,13,708/-. Thereafter, assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) appeals Mumbai who confirmed the order of assessing officer. Therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

4.

We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. At very outset, the learned representative of the assessee has argued that assessing officer did not allow to adduce the evidence and did not examine the relevant records carefully therefore in the said circumstances the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in question is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. It is argued that the details of the sale of goat has been shown at page 1 of the paper book and details of expenditure has also been shown at page 2 of the paper book and bills and vouchers have also been produced before the tribunal which lies with page 3to 87 of the paper book and all these documents were not considered by the assessing officer therefore in the said circumstances the appellant should be allowed to adduce these evidence before assessing officer in accordance with law. The learned representative of the Department has refuted the said contentions. Keeping in view of the arguments advanced by the learned representative of the parties and perusing the record carefully, it came into the notice that that the assessing officer has declined the business loss to the tune of Rs.3,13,708/- in connection with business of trading of goats. While making the assessment, the assessing officer relied upon the closing and opening stock and doubted regarding the business of trading goat. The documents which have been ITA No.7638.M.14 A.Y.2009-10 produced before us, are nowhere discussed in the order in question. At the stage without commenting upon the merits of the case, we are of the view that that the order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. The documents which have been produced before us are the relevant documents which can decide the matter of controversy between the parties in accordance with law. Therefore in the said circumstances, we set aside the order of learned CIT and direct the assessing officer to decide the matter afresh in the light of the documents produced by the assessee before us. The assessing officer would provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law in the interest of justice.

5.

In result the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed accordingly.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →