SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ, MUMBAI v. ACIT CIR 20(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4854/MUM/2009 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 485419914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AADFS5360A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4854/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT CIR 20(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 13-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 03-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 03-08-2010
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 21-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4854/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 M/S. SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ C/O. KARNAVAT & CO. 2A KITAB MAHAL 1 ST FLOOR 192 DR. D.N. ROAD MUMBAI-400 001 PAN: AADFS5360A VS. THE ASST. CIT CIRCLE-20(2) MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH ORDER DATE OF HEARING: 03.08.2010 DATE OF ORDER: 13.08.2010 PER R.K. PANDA AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 24 TH JUNE 2009 OF THE CIT(A)-XIV MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLENGE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.9 79 189 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS JEWELLERY/ DIAMONDS. 3. THIS IS THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THERE WAS A S URVEY ACTION AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM U/S. 133 A OF THE ACT ON 6.12.1996. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY DISCREP ANCIES WERE NOTED IN THE GOLD JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE ITEM S OF JEWELLERY I.T.A. NO. 4854/MUM/2009 M/S. SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ ==================== 2 REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ON 6.12.1996 A ND HAS ACTUALLY FOUND AS PER THE INVENTORY TAKEN ON THE DA TE OF SURVEY ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER ACCORDINGLY REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DI SCREPANCY INCLUDING THE DISCREPANCY OF VALUE OF DIAMOND ORNAM ENTS AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY THE APPROVED VALUE R. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE APPROVED VALUER HAD VALUED THE O RNAMENTS AS ON 6.12.1996 WHILE THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING THE V ALUE AS PER THE PURCHASE PRICE. THE SURVEY TEAM PREPARED THE I NVENTORY IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN WEIGHT OF GOLD JEWELLE RY WHILE THE ASSESSEES STOCK REGISTER SHOWED THE NET WEIGHT. B ESIDES IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT GOLD ORNAMENTS BELONGING TO THE CUSTOMERS WERE ALSO LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE. HAD THEY BEEN C ONSIDERED THERE IS EXCESS IN 22 CT. AND 18 CT. GOLD ORNAMENTS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2 0 811 IN THE CASH AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. CONSIDERING THESE DISC REPANCIES THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM OFFERED A SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PERUSING THE RETURN OF INCO ME NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED THE AFORESAID SUM AND REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH SEPARATE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT AND TRADING ACCOUNT. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO S UBMIT THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD NEGATED THE EFFECT OF THE ADDITIONAL DECLARATION BY SHOWING THE SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS IN THE FORM OF INCREASE ON THE V ALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADD ITION OF RS.10 LAKHS U/S.69A OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXCEPT THE EXCESS CASH FOUND OF RS.20 811 DURING THE SURVEY ACTION CA RRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL REMITTE D THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH. I.T.A. NO. 4854/MUM/2009 M/S. SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ ==================== 3 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE E XCESS STOCK FOUND AND THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF JEWELLER Y NOTICED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 133A WAS DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AND GP SHOWN IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT IS INCLUSIVE OF DECLARATION MADE DURING THE SURVEY U/S. 133A. ON BEING REQUIRED BY THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF GOLD AND DIAMON D JEWELLERY FOR THE TWO PERIODS I.E. FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD TILL THE DATE OF SURVEY AND FROM THE DATE OF SURVEY TILL THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. 6. THE CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE CLAIM OF HAVING DECLARE D THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS GOLD FOUND I N THE CLOSING STOCK IS CORRECT. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD VERY S MARTLY CLAIMED A THEFT OF 1555.350 G OF 22 CT. GOLD ORNAME NTS AND THEREBY NULLIFIED THE EFFECT OF DECLARATION BY CLAI MING SUCH THEFT OF STOCK AS AGAINST SALE. HE OBSERVED THAT SINCE T HE CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVIDENTLY AND ADM ITTEDLY THE SAME REMAINS UNVERIFIED AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM REMAINS UNEXAMINED AND NOT INVESTIGATED AT THE LEVE L OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE HAVING CALLED FOR SPECIFI CALLY THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF TWO PERIOD SEPARATELY THE ASSESS EE DID NOT FURNISH THE SAME. THEREFORE THIS IS A CLEAR CUT C ASE OF A CLAIM MADE IN THE GARB OF AN ACCOUNT NOT POSSIBLE TO BE P REPARED AND WHICH WAS REFUSED TO BE FURNISHED WHEN ASKED FOR EX AMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE NOTED THAT ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED THEN ONLY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND HAVING MADE A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 16 TH MAY 2000 EXPLAINING AS TO HOW I.T.A. NO. 4854/MUM/2009 M/S. SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ ==================== 4 IT HAS ACCOUNTED FOR THE SURRENDER AMOUNT OF RS.10 LAKHS MADE BY FURNISHING THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF 22 CT. GOLD OR NAMENTS AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY ETC. SINCE THE CLAIM OF THEFT O F 22 CT. GOLD JEWELLERY OF 1555.350 G REMAINS TO BE EXAMINED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO SUCH CLAIM OF THEFT FOUND HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO DUR ING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS TACTFULLY N ULLIFIED THE EFFECT OF SURRENDERED AMOUNT IN THE GARB OF THIEF O F 22 CT. GOLD ORNAMENTS THAT TOO IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SURVEY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO T HE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4 TH JANUARY 2000 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AS PER PARA 2 O F THE SAID LETTER HAD FILED THE COPY OF FIR IN RESPECT OF THEF T WHICH OCCURRED ON 8 TH MARCH 1997. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE AUDITOR S REPORT HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK (PAGE 8 OF THE AUDIT REPORT) WHERE IT WA S MENTIONED THAT GOLD AND ORNAMENTS (22 CT.) SALES OF 14517.20 G INCLUDES THE THEFT OF 1555.350 G. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL TH ESE FACTS WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO T HE TRIBUNAL FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9 79 189 CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). THEREFORE AFTER SUCH REMISSION BY THE TRIBUNAL THE POWER OF THE CIT(A) IS LIMITED. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHINDR A & CO. REPORTED IN 269 ITR 426 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICERS POWER IS LIMITED TO GIVING THE EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) OR THE AAC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT GO BEYOND THE I.T.A. NO. 4854/MUM/2009 M/S. SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ ==================== 5 DIRECTION IN REFRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN CONSEQU ENCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 8. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF SAHELI SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT REP ORTED IN 302 ITR 126 HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE CIT(A) SETS ASID E THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTS REFRAMING OF THE ASSE SSMENT IT IS NOT AN OPEN SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN NOT PROCESS NEW SOURCES OF INCOME. REFERRING TO THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TRIKAMLAL MANEKLAL REPORTED IN 33 ITR 725 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND AR RIVED AT A CERTAIN DECISION HAS THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE B Y THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS FINAL U/S. 33(6) AND IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO PERMIT THE CORRECTION OF THAT ORDER TO BE QUESTIONED IN THE PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENTLY BROUG HT BEFORE IT AGAINST THE FINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MERELY BECAUS E THE TRIBUNAL AT THE LATER STAGE IS ADVISED THAT THE PRE VIOUS ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS IN LAW. 9. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHERATON INTERNATIONAL INC. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 293 ITR (AT) 68 HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE TRIBUNAL SETS ASIDE AN ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT AFRESH THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT IS NOT AT LARGE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS TO RESTRICT HIMSELF TO THE POINT OF DISPUTE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 10. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUDARSHAN KUMAR VS. ITO REPORTED IN 236 ITR (AT) 89 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HA S HELD THAT THE AAC HAD NO POWER TO REVIEW THE MATTERS WHICH HA VE ATTAINED FINALITY. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN A H IGHER COURT I.T.A. NO. 4854/MUM/2009 M/S. SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ ==================== 6 CANNOT ALTER OR MODIFY DIRECTION WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. THEIR POWER AND JURISDICTION ARE CO-TERMINUS WITH T HOSE OF THE ITO WHO HAS TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF TH E DIRECTIONS OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. HE ACCORD INGLY SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE OF DIFFER ENCE IN VALUE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AND DISCREPANCY IN THE VALUE OF G OLD ORNAMENTS THE CIT(A) CANNOT GO BEYOND THE DIRECTIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL. 11. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BO TH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BE FORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.10 LAK HS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH SEPARATE TRADING ACCOUNTS AND PROFI T AND LOSS A/C. FOR THE PERIOD UP TO THE SURVEY AND AFTER THE SURVEY: (A) DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY - RS. 8 00 00 (B) CASH FOUND IN EXCESS - RS. 20 811 (C) DISCREPANCY IN VALUE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS - RS. 1 79 189 ----------------- TOTAL RS.10 00 000 =========== 13. WE FIND THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION IN RELATION TO CASH FOUND OF RS.20 811 BUT SUSTAINED THE BALANCE ADDITI ON OF RS.9 79 189 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL I.T.A. NO. 4854/MUM/2009 M/S. SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ ==================== 7 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER IN RELATION TO ITEM NOS. (A) AND (C) ABOVE AMOUNTING TO RS.9 79 189 FOR WHIC H THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND MERIT IN THE PRELIMINARY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE NOTED ABOVE. WE AGREE WITH THE LEANED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED MAINLY THE ASPECT OF RS.20 811 IN RELATI ON TO CASH FOUND COMPRISED IN THE ABOVE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS AND HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER INSOFAR AS THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF THE OTHER TW O ITEMS NOTED ABOVE VIZ. DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AND DISCREPANCY IN THE VALUE OF GOOD ORNAMENTS. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH EXAMINATION AND DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER IN RELATION TO THOSE ASPECTS. WE ACCORDINGL Y SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN RELAT ION TO THE ABOVE TWO ITEMS AND WITHOUT COMMENTING ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION IN RELATION TO THE TWO I TEMS NOTED ABOVE VIZ. DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AND DISCREPANCY IN THE VALUE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS REMIT THESE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH BEARING AND DISPOSAL O F THE MATTER. HE SHALL RE DECIDE THE ADDITION IN RELATIO N TO THESE TWO ITEMS AFRESH BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER DEALING WITH THE MERITS OF THE ABOVE ITEMS OF ADDITION. HE SHALL OF COURSE AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSI NG ANY FURTHER ORDER ON THIS BEHALF. 14. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE OF DIFFER ENCE IN THE VALUE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AND DISCREPANCY IN THE VALUE O F GOLD ORNAMENTS THEREFORE THE CIT(A) CANNOT GO BEYOND T HE ABOVE. FURTHER THE ISSUE OF THEFT OF GOLD WAS ALREADY BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE A NOTE WAS APPENDED IN THE AUDITORS REPORT AND A COPY OF THE FIR WAS ALREADY FILED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER LETTER ADDRESSED TO HIM ON 4 TH JANUARY I.T.A. NO. 4854/MUM/2009 M/S. SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ ==================== 8 2000. FURTHER ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE OF THEFT WAS BROU GHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A) WHO PASSED THE ORDER ON 24 TH JUNE 2009 NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVEN UE AT THE TIME OF HEARING THAT THE THEFT OF 1 555.350 G GOLD ORNAMENTS INCLUDED IN THE SALES OF 14517.20 G IS FALSE OR UNT RUE. ON A POINTED QUERY BY THE BENCH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT IT IS A WRONG REPRESENTATION IN THE A CCOUNTS BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED SUC H THEFT IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESP ITE BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE FIR DID NOT CHOOSE TO QUE STION/ CONFRONT THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NO PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 HA S BEEN INITIATED BY THE CIT. WE FURTHER FIND THE CIT(A) HA S GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE CLAIM OF HAVING DECLARED THE ADDIT IONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS GOLD FOUND IN THE CLOSING STOC K IS CORRECT. HE HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN A SMART MANNER GOT THE DECLARATION NULLIFIED BY CLAIMING THE THEFT OF STOC K AGAINST SALE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE ANY THING IN A SMART MANNE R NOTHING PREVENTED THE DEPARTMENT FROM BECOMING SMARTER AND PROVE THAT THE THEORY OF THEFT IS FALSE OR UNTRUE. HAVIN G NOT DONE SO THE REVENUE NOW CANNOT SAY THAT THE DECLARATION GOT NULLIFIED DUE TO SMARTNESS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE THEFT IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHO NEVER CONFRONTED THE SAME TO THE AS SESSEE AND SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE F ILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VAL UE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY AND DISCREPANCY IN THE VALUE GOLD ORNAMEN TS ONLY THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE POWER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IS LIMITED TO THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HE CANNOT GO BEYOND THE DIRECTION OF T HE TRIBUNAL. I.T.A. NO. 4854/MUM/2009 M/S. SAWANTRAJ HANWANTRAJ ==================== 9 IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS.9 79 189. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH AUGUST 2010 SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 13 TH AUGUST 2010 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-XIV MUMBAI 4. THE CIT-14 MUMBAI 5. THE DR I BENCH. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI TPRAO