, ""
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM)
.. , ,
./I.T.A. No.4385/Mum/2012
( / Assessment Year : 2005-06)
The Navyug Co-operative / Income Tax Officer-21(2)(3),
Housing Society Limited, Vs. C-10, 5th floor,
Jai Hind Club Bldg., Pratyakshakar Bhavan,
2nd floor, Plot No.51, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
N.S.Road No.11, Bandra (E),
JVPD Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400051.
Mumbai-400049.
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
. / . /PAN/GIR No. : AAAAT 0325L
/ Appellant by : Parvati Ganesh, Representative of
Assessee
/Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Bare
/ Date of Hearing
: 10.12.2013
/Date of Pronouncement : 10.12.2013
/ O R D E R
Per B.R.Mittal, JM:
The assessee has filed this appeal for assessment year 2005-06 against ex-parte
order of ld. CIT(A) dated 31.1.2011 on following grounds :
"1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO charging to tax
contribution received from members aggregating to Rs.8,38,000/- incidental to
sale of plot ["transfer fees'] which was exempt on the Principle of mutuality;
2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO charging to tax
TDR Premium of Rs.6,02,000/- which was exempt on the Principle of
mutuality;
3. The ld. CIT(A) erred not following the order of the jurisdictional
Bombay High Court in the case of Sind Co-operative Housing Society V/s ITO,
Pune, 317 ITR 47 (Bom);
4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AO and disallowing
the expenses of Rs.3,93,000/- on the ground that there is no nexus between
the income earned and the expenses incurred;"
I.T.A. No.4385/Mum/2012
2
2. At the time of hearing, ld.AR submitted that Representative of the assessee did
not attend the hearing before ld. CIT(A) and consequently requisite documents and
information could not be placed before him. Ld. AR submitted that if the matter is
restored to ld. CIT(A), the assessee will furnish requisite documents and details before
him.
3. We have considered the above submissions of ld. AR and have gone through
the order of ld. CIT(A). We observe that the ld.CIT(A) had given adequate opportunities
to the assessee to furnish requisite details but needful was not done for the reasons
best known to the assessee. Be that as it may, we, in the interest of justice, consider it
prudent to set aside the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) and restore the issues to him
with a direction to decide the same afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to
the parties and considering such evidences as may be placed before him by a reasoned
order as per provisions of law subject to the condition that assessee will pay cost of
Rs.5000/- to the department. In view of above, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A)
and restore the matter to him to decide the issues afresh after giving opportunity of
hearing to the assessee and considering the relevant details as may be placed before
him subject payment of cost of Rs.5000/- by the assessee. We may state that if the
assessee fails to co-operate with ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) will decide the appeal on
the basis of material available before him.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/-.
5. The above order was pronounced after conclusion of hearing in the presence of
ld. Representatives of both the parties on 10th December, 2013.
10th December, 2013
Sd sd
( /RAJENDRA) (.. /B.R.MITTAL)
/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai:
. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
I.T.A. No.4385/Mum/2012
3
3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. / CIT concerned
5. , , /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
True copy
(Asstt. Registrar)
, /ITAT, Mumbai
|
