Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Bee Pee Textiles, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 1 January, 2008
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH "B ",MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD(A.M) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (J.M)
ITA NO.851/MUM/08(A.Y.2003-04)
Bee-Pee Textiles, The Addl. CIT, Range 14(2),
384-F Dhabholakarwadi, Earnest House, 3rd Floor,
Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 02.
Mumbai - 400 002.
PA No.AAFFB 3061R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA NO.2394/MUM/08(A.Y. 2003-04)
The Addl. CIT, Range 14(2), Bee-Pee Textiles,
Earnest House, 3rd Floor, 384-F Dhabholakarwadi,
Nariman Point, Mumbai - 02. Vs. Kalbadevi Road,
Mumbai - 400 002.
(Appellant) PA No.AAFFB 3061R
(Respondent)
Revenue by : Smt. Vandana Sagar
Assessee by : Shri Mukesh B.Advani
ORDER
PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JM
These are cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as the revenue against the order of ld.CIT(A) XIV, Mumbai dated 1/1/2008 passed for the assessment year 2003-04.
2. First we take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.2394/Mum/04. The first ground of appeal of the revenue reads as under:-
"The CIT(A) erred in restricting the adhoc disallowance made on account of polishing and finishing charges to 25% without appreciating the fact that the assessee's submission that cheques were issued as per the bills on different dates was without any basis/supporting evidence."2 ITA NO.851&2394/MUM/08(A.Y.2003-04)
3. The ld. D.R, Smt. Vandana Sagar pointed out certain discrepancies in the documents filed by the ld. A.R of the assessee. By written submission she submitted the synopsis of the arguments, wherein she had brought out the discrepancies in detail. We have perused the same and we find that the discrepancies need to be verified by the A.O . The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Mukesh B. Advani did not object the matter being remitted back to the file of the A.O to enable him to get the statement from the parties to whom payments have been made by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In these circumstances the matter shall go back to the file of the AO and the assessee shall get an opportunity to produce the parties before him. The ld. counsel for the assessee also pointed out that one of the parties had expired and the A.O may examine the brother of the party who had expired. We hereby direct the A.O to take appropriate measures to give an effective and reasonable hearing to the assessee and dispose of the case according to law.
4. The next ground of appeal raised by the revenue is as under:-
"The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,02,482/- on account of packing material without appreciating the fact that the genuineness of the bill of M/s. Uma Packaging has not been provided by the assessee."
5. The ld. D.R pointed out the discrepancy, which is as follows:-
"At page 97 of the paper book by letter dated 22/6/06 Oriental Bank of Commerce has certified that payments were paid in cash to the bearer of the cheques."
Whereas in the order of the ld. CIT(A) at page 16 it has been observed as follows:-
"The JCIT has pointed out the discrepancy that there were no intermittent bills issued by Uma Packaging which creates doubt regarding the genuineness of these bills. On the other hand the AR has taken a stand that since the payments made to that part stood confirmed and the same stood made by account payee cheques, there was no justification to make any addition out of the packing material. Having considered the facts I am of the view that although the fact that no intermittent bills were issued by that party creates some doubt on the genuineness of the payment, the AO/JCIT should have made further investigation by calling that party and recording the statement to ascertain the truth but nothing further has been done."3 ITA NO.851&2394/MUM/08(A.Y.2003-04)
Therefore, the ld.D.R pointed out that the matter needs verification and should be sent back to the A.O for further enquiry. In these circumstances we remit this issue to the file of the A.O to ascertain the same after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
6. The next ground of appeal of the revenue is as under:-
"The CIT(A) erred in reducing the disallowance of bad debts to Rs. 1,80,510/- without appreciating the fact that no details in respect of the same were furnished by the assessee."
7. Since ld. D.R pointed out that no details in respect of the bad debts were furnished by the assessee we once again remit this issue to the file of the A.O.
8. Ground No.4 of the revenue's appeal reads as under:-
"The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9000/- in respect of unsecured loans without appreciating the fact that no particulars in respect of the same were furnished by the assessee."
9. Here again the details with respect to unsecured loans are to be verified by the A.O and the same is remitted back to his file.
10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA NO.851/MUM/08-ASSESSEE'S APPEAL
11. Since the issues raised in the appeal by the assessee have been considered in the Departmental appeal and the matter has been set aside to the file of the A.O the assessee's appeal becomes redundant.
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as redundant.
Order pronounced on the 2nd day of Dec. 2009
Sd/- Sd/-
(T.R.SOOD) ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dt. 2nd Dec, 2009.
4 ITA NO.851&2394/MUM/08(A.Y.2003-04)
Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The CIT -XIV,Mumbai
4. The CIT(A)- XIV,Mumbai 5. The D.R "B" Bench.
(True copy) By Order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai Benches
MUMBAI.
Vm.
5 ITA NO.851&2394/MUM/08(A.Y.2003-04)
Details Date Initials Designation
1 Draft dictated on 2/12/09 Sr.PS/PS
2 Draft Placed before author 2/12/09 Sr.PS/PS
3 Draft proposed & placed before JM/AM
the Second Member
4 Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM
Second Member
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS
Sr.PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS
8 Date on which the file goes to
the Head clerk
9 Date of Dispatch of order