ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI v. SURESH SADASHIV BAPAT, MUMBAI

ITA 2894/MUM/2012 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 289419914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAHPB4402A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2894/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant ITO 18(2)(2), MUMBAI
Respondent SURESH SADASHIV BAPAT, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 19-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 31-03-2016
Next Hearing Date 31-03-2016
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 30-04-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & RAMLAL NEGI (JM) I.T.A. NO. 2894 /MUM/20 12 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 04 - 05 ) ACIT 18(2) ROOM NO. 115 1 ST FLOOR PIRMAL CHAMBERS PAREL MUMBAI - 400 012. VS. SHRI SURESH SADASH IV BAPAT B - 19 SUKHSHANTI GOKHALE X ROAD NO. 2 DADAR MUMBAI - 400 025. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN NO . AAHPB4402A ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY S HRI NITIN WAGHMODE DATE OF HEARING 18 .10 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18 . 10 . 201 6 O R D E R P ER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) : - THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 29 - 02 - 2012 PASSED BY LD CIT(A) - 29 MUMBAI AND IT RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE HEARING WAS AD JOURNED ON THE LAST OCCASION AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX - PARTE WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HEARD LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT THE REVENUE IS CONTESTING THE ORDER PASS ED BY LD CIT(A) GRANTING RELIEF IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING ITEMS: - (A) DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES (B) DISALLOWANCE OF CUSTOM DUTY PAYMENT (C) DISALLOWANCE U/S 94(7) OF THE ACT. SHRI SURESH SADASHIV BAPAT 2 4. THE LD D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. EVEN THOUGH THE LD CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO YET HE PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE REMAND REPORT. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I T RU LES. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) AND WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD D.R. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE ISSUES NEED TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINING THEM AFRESH BY DULY CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) ON THE ISSUES CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE AND RESTORE THEM TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR EXAMINING THEM AFRESH BY DULY CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES THAT WERE/MAY BE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 . 10 .2016 SD/ - SD/ - (RAMLAL NEGI ) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 18 / 10 / 20 1 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORD ER //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) PS ITAT MUMBA I