MILAN B. DALAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-II) CR 7, MUMBAI

In the assessee is aggrieved for addition of Rs.3,46,319/- made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), and in ITA No.3927/Mum/2013 appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the CIT(A) imposing penalty u/s.271AAA of the Act. ITA No.8052/Mum/2011 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a director of M/s Grishma Construction and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. and also proprietor of M/s S.Ramdas. The assessee is engaged in the business of finance and financial consultancy. M/s 2 ITA No.8052/M/11 & Grishma Construction and Trading Pvt. ltd. are engaged in the construction business. There was a search u/s.132 in the residential premises of assessee. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.12,29,230/-. The AO asked the assessee to furnish the details as per the questionnaire issued. After verification of all the relevant seized books of accounts, documents, loose papers, registers and other seized material, the AO made addition of Rs.36,00,000/- u/s.69C of the Act on account of low withdrawals and Rs.3,46,319/- on account of unaccounted cash receipt. In appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.36,00,000/- on account of low withdrawals and confirmed the addition of Rs.3,46,319/-, against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

Ld. AR submitted that both the authorities below have not considered the page-wise explanation in respect of bills/credit notes of Uniglobe on Royal Developers as per page No.30 to 37 of the seized material. Ld. AR filed additional evidences contained in paper book at pages 1 to 13, which are confirmation of Uniglobe Comfort Travel, copy of account of Royal Developers in the Books of accounts of Unigloble Comfort Travel and part of the assessment records.

On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.

We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. We found that the AO made addition on account of no confirmation was filed by the assessee from the concerned party in regard to receipt of Rs.3,46,319/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the 3 & above addition. From the additional documents filed by the ld. AR before us, we found that these documents are produced before the Tribunal for the first time. We had gone through the reasons which prevented the assessee to file these evidences before the lower authorities and found that there was reasonable cause for the same. However these documents go to the root of the issue, therefore in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file of AO to decide afresh after considering the evidences/documents so filed by the assessee and giving proper opportunity of being heard. We direct accordingly.

In the result appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.3927/Mum/2013 8. In respect of the imposition of the penalty u/s. 271 AAA of the Act, we found that addition with respect to which penalty has been levied, has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh. In terms of additional evidence filed before the Tribunal, we also restore the appeal with regard to levy of penalty u/s. 271 AAA to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after deciding a quantum order as per directions contended herein above.

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 03/02/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 03/02/2016 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS 4 ITA No.8052/M/11 & Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ा पाईर / Guard file. 6. सत्मावऩत प्रनत //True Copy// आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER,