Rajesh G Mehta Mumbai v. Asst Cit Cen Cir 36 Mumbai

ITA 231/MUM/2016 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

Note: Please login to view full details
RSA Number 23119914 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN xxxxxxxxxxx
Bench xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Number xxxxxxxxxxx
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant xxxxxxxxxxx
Respondent xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-12-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 05-12-2017
Last Hearing Date 05-12-2017
First Hearing Date 05-12-2017
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 14-01-2016
Judgment Text
In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai Benches D Mumbai Before Shri Joginder Singh Judicial Member And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal Accountant Member Ita Nos 231 To 235 Mum 2016 Assessment Years 2008 09 To 2012 13 Shri Rajesh G Mehta C 901 Panchseel Heights Mahavir Nagar Kandivali Mumbai 400067 Vs Acit Central Circle 36 Mumbai Assessee Revenue Pan No Aafpm 9963 R Date Of Hearing 05 12 2017 Date Of Order 05 12 2017 Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Shri Poojan Mehta Revenue By Shir Narendra Singh Jangpangi Cit Dr Ita Nos 231 To 235 Mum 2016 Shri Rajesh G Mehta 2 O R D E R Per Joginder Singh Judicial Member This Bunch Of Five Appeals Is By The Assessee Again St The Impugned Orders All Dated 24 09 2015 Of The Ld Fir St Appellate Authority Mumbai On The Grounds As Stat Ed In The Grounds Of Appeal 2 During Hearing The Ld Counsel For The Assessee Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Along With Poojan Mehta Filed Addition Evidence Which Could Not Be Filed Before The First Appellate Authority As Sufficient Opportunity Was N Ot Provided The Copy Of The Additional Evidences Was Also Given To The Ld Cit Dr Shri Naredra Singh Jangpangi As Sessee Has Also Filed Affidavit Stating The Compelling Rea Sons Due To Which The Evidences Could Not Be Furnished Before T He Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal It Was Explai Ned That For Assessment Year 2007 08 Vide Order Dated 08 11 2016 Ita No 270 Mum 2016 Identically The Issue Was Remanded Back To The File Of The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal For Fresh Adjudication The Assessee Also Filed Pho Tocopy Of The Aforesaid Order Of The Tribunal Dated 08 11 2016 The Ld Cit Dr Contended That It Was The Duty Of The Assessee To Ita Nos 231 To 235 Mum 2016 Shri Rajesh G Mehta 3 Make Effective Representation And To File The Neces Sary Evidence Within The Stipulated Period 2 1 We Have Considered The Rival Submissions And Perused The Material Available On Record In View O F The Above We Are Reproducing Hereunder The Relevant Po Rtion From The Aforesaid Order Of The Tribunal Dated 08 1 1 2016 For Ready Reference And Analysis This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 14 1 2016 Is Against The Order Of The Cit A 53 Mumbai Dated 24 9 2015 For The Assessment Year 2007 2008 2 In This Appeal Assessee Raised Seven Grounds In Toto And Apart From Other Issues They Include Certain Legal Issues Viz Correctness Of The Assessment Order Made U S 14 3 3 R W S 153 A Of The Act And The Decision Of The Ao On The Applicability Of The Provisions Of Section 153 A Of The Act In The Absence Of Any Incriminating Material Assessee Further Argues In The Grounds That This Is The Case Of Unab Ated Assessment And The Ao Does Not Have Free Hand In Ma King Additions Which Are Supported By The Incriminating Material Further Assessee Alleges That The Adjudi Cation By The Cit A Was Made Exparte And Therefore The Cit A Violated The Principles Of Natural Justice The Oth Er Issues Raised In This Appeal Relate To The Merits Of The A Ssessment Order And The Additions Made Therein 3 Before Us There Is A Letter For Adjournment Dat Ed 7 11 2016 Wherein Assessee Seeks Certain Time To C Ompile The Details In This Regard In Response To The Que Stions From The Bench Regarding The Details Likely To Be F Iled There Is No Response From The Assessee S Side Accordingly Ita Nos 231 To 235 Mum 2016 Shri Rajesh G Mehta 4 The Request For Adjournment Is Rejected And We Proc Eed To Hear The Case On The Grounds Raised Before Us 4 Bringing Our Attention To The Grounds No 4 And 6 It Is Submitted That The Cit A Passed Order Without Attendance Of The Assessee Or Any Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Therefore There Is A Request For Remanding This Appeal To The File Of The Cit A With A Direc Tion To Grant Further Opportunity In Addition To The Detail S Provided In Para 3 2 Of The Impugned Order It Is A Lso Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Relating To Ma King Of Assessment In The Absence Of Any Incriminating Mate Rial U S 153 A Of The Act Is Unsustainable In Law 5 On Hearing Both The Parties We Have Perused The Order Of The Ao Dated 26 3 2014 And Find The Assessee Fil Ed The Return Of Income Originally On 2 6 2008 Declaring T He Total Income Of Rs 6 6 Lakhs Rounded Off Consequent T O The Search Action Conducted On Shri Rajesh G Mehta Th E Director Of M S Karma Industries Limited In Respo Nse To The Notice U S 153 A Of The Act Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring The Increased Total Income Of Rs 33 65 021 On The Fact Of It The Assessment Orde R Does Not Indicate Any Incriminating Material Evidence In Any Form For This Increased Total Income Assessee Decl Ared An Amount Of Rs 28 12 544 As Short Term Capital Ga Ins And Claimed Benefit Of The Provisions Of Section 11 1 A Of The Act Relating To The Tax On Short Term Capital Gain S Suo Moto In Certain Cases Ao Never Mentioned That The Above Additional Income Is Attributable To Any Incriminat Ing Material Seized U S 132 Of The Act Assessing Offic Er Considered The Claim Of The Assessee And Found Ass Essee Does Not Establish The Applicability Of The Said Pr Ovisions Of The Act And The Conditions Are Satisfactorily Me T Before Claiming The Concessional Tax Rates Accordingly T He Said Income Was Treated As Normal Income Ao Also Denied The Claim Of Deduction Under Chapter Vi A Amounting To Rs 1 10 000 On Appeal Cit A Confirmed The Same I N His Ita Nos 231 To 235 Mum 2016 Shri Rajesh G Mehta 5 Exparte Adjudication Thus It Is Evident From The Record That The Ao Did Not Have Evidence Incriminating M Aterial To Show That The Said Income Of Rs 28 12 544 Or Deduction Of Rs 1 10 000 Has A Basis Of Any Incriminating Material Found During The Search Acti On However This Is The Case Where Adjudication By The Cit A Is Done In The Absence Of The Assessee Or His Representative Considering The Fairness Of The Req Uirement Of The Adjudication Of Issues Involved We Are Of T He Opinion The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Appeal Are Required To Be Remanded To The File Of The Cit A For Fresh Adjudication After Granting A Reasonable Oppo Rtunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee Assessee Is Also Di Rected To Make Attendance Without Fail This Time In The Secon D Round Of Proceedings Before The First Appellate Authority We Order Accordingly Thus Grounds Raised By The Asse Ssee Are Allowed For Statistical Purposes 6 In The Result Appeal Of The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes 2 2 The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Director In M S Karma Industries Ltd And Was Recei Ving Remuneration And Also Income From Other Sources Fo R Assessment Year 2008 09 The Assessee Declared Inco Me Of Rs 74 91 670 In His Return Filed On 20 04 2009 A Search Was Carried Out U S 132 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Hereinafter The Act Upon The Assessee Therefore Notice U S 153 A Of The Act Was Issued The Ld Assessing Offic Er While Framing The Assessment U S 143 3 R W S 153 A Of The Act Made Certain Additions Disallowances Broadly With R Espect To Ita Nos 231 To 235 Mum 2016 Shri Rajesh G Mehta 6 Treating The Short Term Capital Gains Of Rs 61 89 6 74 As Business Income And Charge The Normal Rate Of Tax The Ld Assessing Officer Also Made Disallowance Of Deducti On U S Chapter Via Of The Act Amounting To Rs 1 10 000 Likewise For Assessment Year 2009 10 The Amount O F Rs 35 49 323 Was Assessed At Normal Tax Rate And Also Made Addition Of Rs 99 75 000 On Account Of Unexp Lained Investment U S 69 Of The Act Almost Similar Are Th E Facts Except The Figures In Different Assessment Years As Is Evidenced From The Facts Available On Record Howev Er Before Us The Assessee Filed Additional Evidence Which Co Uld Not Be Filed Before The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Ap Peal Within The Specified Time The Assessee Has Also Fi Led An Affidavit Stating That The Assessee Could Not Atten D The Office Of The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal Unde R The Bona Fide Reasons Compelling Circumstances As Has B Een Narrated In The Said Affidavit Considering The Afo Resaid Order Of The Tribunal And The Reasons Explained Before Us Stated In The Affidavit We Are Of The View That Even As Per Article 265 Of The Constitution Of India Only Due Taxes Has To Be Levied Collected Even Otherwise No Persons Shoul D Be Ita Nos 231 To 235 Mum 2016 Shri Rajesh G Mehta 7 Condemned Unheard Thus Considering The Principle Of Natural Justice And The Material Facts Available On Record In All Fairness We Deem It Appropriate To Remand Thes E Files To The File Of The First Appellate Authority To Adjudi Cate The Same Afresh On Merit The Assessee Be Given Opportunity Of Being Heard With Further Liberty To Furnish Evidence In S Upport Of His Claim The Assessee Is Also Directed To Remain Careful And To Furnish The Necessary Evidence Before The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal Thus The Appe Als Of The Assessee Are Allowed For Statistical Purposes O Nly Finally Appeals Of The Assessee Are Allowed For Statistical Purposes This Order Was Pronounced In The Open Court In The Presence Of Ld Representatives From Both Sides At The Conclusion Of Hearing On 05 12 2017 Sd Manoj Kumar Aggarwal Sd Joginder Singh Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai Dated 05 12 2017 F X T P S Ita Nos 231 To 235 Mum 2016 Shri Rajesh G Mehta 8 Copy Of The Order Forwarded To 1 The Appellant Respective Assessee 2 0 The Respondent 3 1 1 2 The Cit Mumbai 4 1 1 2 Cit A Mumbai 5 45 1 6 Dr Itat Mumbai 6 7 Guard File By Order 04 True Copy Dy Asstt Registrar Itat Mumbai