9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the time when the proceedings before CIT(A) had come up for hearing - direct the assessee to make proper compliance before the AO to enable the AO to decide the issue afresh - appeals allowed for statistical purposes - ITA NO.2369 & 2370/MUM/2011 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2012 - SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN SHRI R.K.PANDA, JJ. Appellant by : Shri R.C.Jain/Ajay Daga Respondent by : Shri Santam Bose. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M: ITA No.2369/M/11 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 20/7/2010 of CIT(A) 20, Mumbai relating to assessment year 2006- 07. ITA No.2370/M/11 is also an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21/1/2011 of CIT(A) 20, Mumbai relating to assessment year 2006-07. ITA No.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing details called for in the notice dated 30/6/2008 under section 142(1) of the Act: Details of creditors exceeding Rs. 1 lac in alphabetical order, in the following format: S.No. Name address Balance as on Nature of transactions Date of payment Details of current Liabilities. Details of TDS paid. S.No. Amount credited Date of deduction Due date TDS paid Date of payment Delay in payment 4. In compliance with the aforesaid notice, the Assessee filed on 25/7/2008 the following details: 5. As can be seen from the chart of notices sent by the AO, a final show cause notice dated 10/11/2008 was issued to the assesse, wherein it was pointed out that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee s request. On /6/2010 none appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte. The CIT(A) found no ground to interfere in the order of the and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee has raised Ground No.1 2 before the Tribunal. 7. In the meantime the AO initiated proceedings under section 154 of the Act. He found that in the balance sheet sundry creditors as on 31/3/2006 was Rs. 37,71,267/- and not Rs. 27,71,267/- as mentioned in the order under section 144 of the Act. Consequently the addition that ought to have been made under section 68 of the Act should have been Rs. 22,73,553/-. This mistake was rectified in the proceedings un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rought to our notice that Mr. Jhunjhunwal Srikrishnan Jwalprasad ultimately died on 19/4/2010 and that was the time when the proceedings before CIT(A) had come up for hearing. Ld. Counsel for the assessee thus submitted that because of the aforesaid circumstances the order of the CIT(A) should be set aside and the AO should be directed to make an assessment afresh. 9. We are of the view that the facts and circumstances brought to our notice prevented the assessee from complying with the various requirements at the time of assessment. In the interest of justice we feel that the orders of the CIT(A) have to be set aside and the issue raised by the assessee before CIT(A) have to be restored to the AO for fresh consideration. We direct acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
