M/s. Ushdev International Limited
I.T.A. No. 6441/M/2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH `F', MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &
SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. NO. 6441/Mum/2010
Assessment Year : 2004-05
M/s. Ushdev International Limited Vs. DCIT 2(3)
New Harileela House, Aaykar Bhavan, Tapal No.555,
6th Floor, Mint Road, M. K. Road, Mumbai
Mumbai-400 001
PAN NO: AAACU 1672 R
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta
Respondent by : Shri A. K. Modi
Date of Hearing:. 21.06.2012
Date of Pronouncement: 29-06-2012.
ORDER
Per VIVEK VARMA, J.M. :
The appeal filed by the assessee emerges from the order of CIT(A)-6,
Mumbai, dated 27.07.2010, wherein the assessee has raised the following
grounds :
"1.The Ld. CIT(A) confirming the Assessing Officer's action of
disallowing Bad Debts Written off (Reimbursable Expenses from AHB)
Rs. 14,24, 880/-. The Expenses were incurred on behalf of AHB for
procuring business, to be reimbursed by the AHB. However, due to
dispute AHB had withheld our commission and expenses due from
them. It was finally settled by agreeing to Lump sum amount and the
balance had been rightly written off as not recoverable.
Page 1 of 3
M/s. Ushdev International Limited
I.T.A. No. 6441/M/2010
2. The Ld. CIT(A) held initiating penalty proceedings under sec
271(1)(c) is premature hence, dismissed our ground".
2. The facts are that addition on account of claim of bad debts was
rejected by the A.O. and the issue went up to the Hon'ble ITAT, wherein, the
ITAT set aside the issue to the file of the A.O, because the A.O. had no
occasion to go through the additional evidence placed by the assessee
before the CIT(A). In the second round also, the assessee was unable to
satisfy the A.O. on its claim, and, the CIT(A), in this round of proceedings,
rejected the plea of the assessee and is now once again before the ITAT.
3. Before us, the assessee pleaded its inability to not to produce the
evidence, before the revenue authorities, which he intended to do now. The
AR, placed before us a copy of email received by it from its counter parts in
Madrid, Spain, stating the settlement of their dispute. The AR, therefore,
pleaded that in view of substantial justice, the issue may kindly be restored to
the file of the AO.
4. The DR did not object to the submissions made by the AR.
5. We have to record, that this letter was neither supported by an affidavit
nor through any application under rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal Procedure Rules, but since, we are required to ascertain the facts,
and render justice to either parties, we, once again restore the issue to the
file of the A.O. to form an independent opinion on the document of
settlement as placed before us along with any other evidences, that the
assessee wants to rely upon.
Page 2 of 3
M/s. Ushdev International Limited
I.T.A. No. 6441/M/2010
6. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the issue
to the file of the A.O. with the above directions.
7. The appeal is thus treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 29/06/2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.RAMAKOTAIAH) (VIVEK VARMA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai: 29/06/2012.
p/-*
Page 3 of 3
|
