Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI
अऩीरधथी ओय से / Appellant by None प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent by Shri Vachaspati Tripathi सुनवधई की तधयीख / Date of Hearing : 2.2.2016 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date of Pronouncement: 2.2.2016 आदेश / O R D E R
Per B R Baskaran, AM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.01.2011 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-26, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year 2006-07.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee even though the hearing was adjourned on earlier occasions at the written request of the Authorized Representative of the assessee. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeals ex-parte, without the presence of the assessee.
2 2 04 1 / M/ 2 01 1
We heard the ld. DR and perused the record. The assessee has raised the following grounds in this appeal: a) Confirmation of Disallowance of Rs.4,70,114/- relating to Sales promotion expenses; b) Non exclusion of sales amounting to Rs.61,27,898/- and Rs.19,11,084/- from sales, since have been subjected to tax in assessment year 2005-06.
4. We shall first take up the second issue referred above. We notice that the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 in was disposed of by the co-ordinate Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal on 7.1.2006. In the said order, the Tribunal has restored the matter relating to the addition of Rs.61,27,898/- and Rs.19,11,084/- (referred above) to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for examining them afresh. Since the result of this issue would have a bearing on the second issue urged before us, we think it proper to restore the same to the file of the ld. CIT(A) in order to enable him to take uniform view of the matter.
With regard to the addition relating to the sales promotion expenses, we notice that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on the reasoning that the assessee has not furnished the details relating to the claim of sales promotion expenses of Rs.47,0114/-. The contention of the assessee is that the details were available on record and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition without examining the details. Hence, in our view, this issue also requires fresh examination at the end of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to his file for adjudicating the matter afresh.
3 2 04 1 / M/ 2 01 1