No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra
आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) Both these appeals for Assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 respectively are by the assessee, aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 06/12/2012 and 04/02/2013 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.
First, we shall take up the appeal for Assessment year 2005-06 (ITA No.2348/Mum/2013). During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Rahul Hakani, contended that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has not adjudicated ground no.3, though raised before him. The assessee has also filed additional evidence for admission. The ld. DR, Shri S.K. Bepari, strongly objected the admission of additional evidence as the same was very much available with the assessee during assessment stage as well as first appellate stage and was deliberately not produced before the authorities. On questioning from the bench with respect to availability of the additional evidence with the assessee, it was fairly agreed by the ld. counsel that the additional evidence was very much available with the assessee well before assessment stage. Considering the totality of facts and the factual matrix that the additional evidence intended to be preferred now was very much available with the assessee well before the assessment proceedings and was deliberately not filed before the revenue authorities. It is also noted that the matter at early stage traveled to the Tribunal and broadly the issues were decided against the assessee. No plausible reasoning was explained by the assessee. It is merely a technique of the assessee to delay the proceedings, therefore, in the absence of any cogent reason of admission, at this stage, the additional evidence, is not admitted.
2.1. So far as, ground no. 3 (raised before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) treating the interest of Rs.19,08,724/- as income from other sources is concerned, since the same inadvertently remained to be adjudicated by the ld. First Appellate Authority, therefore, the same is remanded back to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) to decide afresh in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
2.2. For the remaining grounds, we upheld the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), thus, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Now, we shall take up the appeal for Assessment argument is that ground no. 2, raised before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was not adjudicated by him. Considering the totality of facts, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is directed to adjudicate ground no.2 in accordance with law, for which the assessee be given opportunity. The assessee is free to substantiate its claim with documentary evidence, if any, thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
For the remaining grounds, we upheld the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as the matter travelled up to the Tribunal and had reached to finality at least up to the Tribunal level.
Finally, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 11/05/2016.
Sd/- Sd/- (Rajendra) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद�य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 16/05/2016 f{x~{tÜ? P.S/.�न.स. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , Mumbai, 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//