Ulhas K. Palande, Mumbai vs Assessee

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण एफ खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - F BENCH सव ौी आई पी बंसल , याियक सदःय एवं राजे ि, लेखा सदःय Before S/Sh. I P Bansal,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.1724/Mum/2013,िनधा िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year-2009-10 Ulhas K. Palande, ITO Ward 23(1)(4), H-11, Sharad Industrial Estate, Lake Mumbai. Road, Bhandup (West), Mumbai-78. Vs PAN:AACPP4115F (अपीलाथ$ /Assessee) (ू&यथ$ / Respondent) िनधा 'रती ओर से/Assessee by :Shri M Subramanian राजःव क* ओर से/ Revenue by :Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क* तार+ख/ Date of Hearing : 25- 03 -2015 घोषणा क* तार+ख / Date of Pronouncement : 25-03-2015 आय कर अिधिनयम,1961 अिधिनयम क* धारा 254(1) के अ तग त आदे श Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) Per Rajendra, A.M.लेखा सदःय राजे ि के अनुसार:

Challenging the order dt.24.12.2012 of the CIT(A)-33,Mumbai,assessee has raised following Grounds of Appeal:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and approving the findings given by the A.O.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and that too without giving full and proper opportunity of being heard in the matter.

3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred dismissing the appeal and that too without appreciating fully and properly the facts of the case. 4 Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in approving the finding of the A.O. that the total income is assessable at Rs.3.4,74,890/-.

5 Without prejudice to the above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T.(A) erred in approving the action of the A.O. in making an addition of Rs.31,54,334/-.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal at any time.

2.Assessee,an individual,filed his return of income on 16.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs.3,20,555/-.The assessee is proprietor of M/s Punam Enterprise which is in business of manufacturing of engineering goods.Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the on 27.12.11,determining the income of the assessee at Rs.34.74 Lakhs. Effective ground of appeal deals with addition of Rs.31.54 lakhs.During the course of assessment proceedings,the AO noticed that M/s Atul Industries, a Proprietary concern of the daughter of the assessee,was a creditor of Rs. 26.01 Lakhs, that it had also given a loan of Rs. 5.53 Lakhs to the assessee. The AO directed the assessee to file justification with regard to claim of credit and loan liability in the name of his daughter with supporting evidence. As per the AO the assessee did not furnish any explanation.In absence of documentary evidences the AO held that the liability had seized to exist and made an addition of Rs. 31.54 Lakhs (Rs. 26.01 Lakhs+5.53 Lakhs) to the total income of the assessee.

2 ITA No.1724/Mum/13 Ulhas K. Palande 3.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before her the assessee made submissions about the loans taken by him and filed copy of balance-sheet and profit and loss account. He further stated that because of miscommunication with his earlier C.A.,he could file the form no.35 and grounds of appeal before her in proper format.The FAA treated the appeal defective and upheld the addition made by the AO.

4.Before us,the Authorised Representative (AR) stated that the AO had called for the details of Atul Industries on 28.11.2011, that the assessee could not collect the information as desired by the AO in time, that the appeal before the FAA was fixed on 20.12.2012, on that day an attempt was made to submit an adjournment application,that the application was refused,that same was sent to RPAD to the office of the FAA, an adjournment for a period of 15 to 20 days was sought for. He referred to the adjournment application,dated 19.12.2012, sent by the assessee to the FAA.Departmental Representative(DR)left the issue to the discre - tion of the bench.

5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the FAA had dismissed the appeal on technical grounds though she had mentioned that on merits also the case was not sustainable.We further find that assessee had requested the FAA to adjourn the case to file necessary details. We are of the opinion that,in the interest of justice,the matter should be decided after considering the documents of the assessee which he claims to have not been able to collect.Therefore,we are restoring the matter to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to appear before the FAA on 28.04.15 and extend full cooperation to him. Effective ground of appeal filed by the assessee is decided in favour of the assessee, in part. Effective ground of appeal, filed by the assessee is bout not giving him ample opportunity to present his case by the FAA during appellate proceedings.

As a result,appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.

फलतः िनधा 'रती 2ारा दा3खल क* गई अपील अंशतः मंजूर क* जाती है .

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th,March,2015.

आदे श क* घोषणा खुले यायालय म7 8दनांक 25 माच ,2015 को क* गई ।

Sd/- Sd/- आई पी बंसल/I (आई ल P Bansal) (राजे ि / RAJENDRA) याियक सदःय / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai,8दनांक/Date: 25.03.2015 SK आदे श क* ूितिल;प अमे;षत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to : 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ$ 2. Respondent /ू&यथ$

3.The concerned CIT(A)/संब= अपीलीय आयकर आयु>, 4.The concerned CIT /संब= आयकर आयु>

5.DR "F" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai /;वभागीय ूितिनिध,एफ खंडपीठ,आ.अ. याया.मुंबई

6.Guard File/गाड फाईल स&या;पत ूित //True Copy// आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार Dy./Asst. Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai.