MANISH D. SAVANT, MUMBAI v. ITO 11(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6988/MUM/2012 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 698819914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AGVPS7796L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6988/MUM/2012
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant MANISH D. SAVANT, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 11(3)(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 29-02-2016
Next Hearing Date 29-02-2016
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 21-11-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.6988/M/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 2007 ) MR. MANISH D. SAVANT GURUDATTA ATMARAM MHATRE ROAD DAHISAR (W) MUMBAI 400 068. / VS. ITO - 11(3)(1) R.NO.447 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020. ./ PAN : AGVPS7796L ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.V. JHAVERI / RESPONDENT BY : MISS ANUPAMA SINGH CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06.9.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .09.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.11.2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 2 MUMBAI DATED 25.11.2011 FOR THE AY 2006 - 2007. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE RAISED 6 GROUNDS IN TOTO. 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A CONSULTANT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6 29 493/ - . ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 31 42 302/ - . IN THE ASSESSMENT AO MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS IN THE EXPARTE ASSESSMENT. MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CIT (A) ISSUED HEARING NOTICES ON VARIOUS DATES (PARA 1 OF THE CIT (A) ORDER IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD) AND ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SAME. EVENTUALLY CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL 2 OF THE ASSESSEE APPLYING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (I NDIA ) PVT LTD ( 38 ITD 320 ) ( DEL.). AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. REFERRING TO THE SAID NOTICED LD COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2008 (IT BEARS THE ADDRESS IN BORIVALI (W) MUMBAI ) AND FORM NO.36 (IT BEARS THE ADDRESS OF DAHISAR (W) MUMBAI ) LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THE FACT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS. FURTHER BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK DATED 28.7.2015 LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED VARIOUS PAGES BEFORE THE AO / CIT (A) AND THEY WERE IGNORED WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US AND REQUESTED ORALLY FOR ADMITTING THE SAME. 5. PER CONTRA LD DR FOR THE REVENUE OPPOS ED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER BOOK (182 PAGES) FILED BEFORE US WE FIND THAT THERE IS SOME CONFUSION IN THE P OSTAL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE. PRIMA FACIE WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) FAILED TO PASS THE ORDER AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE A CT. HE IS NOT EXPECTED TO PASS ORDER RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (I NDIA ) PVT LTD (SUPRA). AS SUCH THE AO ALSO PASSED HIS ORDER EXPARTE . IN EFFECT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT (A) / AO ARE NOT PROPER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE STATED TO BE UNINTERESTED IN PERUSING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH THERE IS FIN DING OF THE CIT (A) ON MERITS. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS STATED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE PROPERLY. THUS AO IS DIRECTED TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SET 3 PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO ATTEND TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REGULARLY AND PUNCTUALLY AS A F F I R M E D BY THE LD AR BEFORE US. WITH THESE COMMENTS WE REMAND THE ISSU ES RAISED IN THE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 T H SEPTEMBER 2016. S D / - S D / - ( RAVISH SOOD ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 28 .09.2016 . . ./ OKK SR. PS / 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI