,    ""  
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI

   BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM)
     .. ,        ,                                  

                 ./I.T.A. No.1538/Mum/2011
               (   / Assessment Year :2007-08)


 OM Sai Prasad Enterprises,     / Commissioner of Income Tax-23,
 501, Jay Commercial Plaza,
                                Vs. C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan,
 Junction of SL Road, and M G           Bandra-Kurla Complex,
 Road,
 Mulund West,
                                        Bandra (E),
 Mumbai-400080                          Mumbai-400051.
       ( /Appellant)             ..     (    / Respondent)


         . /   . /PAN/GIR No. :AASFO5449B



           / Appellant by               None
             /Rspondent by              Shri Deep Kant Prasad



           / Date of Hearing                : 6.7.2015
           /Date of Pronouncement : 6.7.2015

                              / O R D E R

PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM)

      The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order      dated
13.1.2011 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax-23, Mumbai, under
section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for assessment year
2007-08. The assessee is challenging the validity of revision order passed
by the Commissioner of Income Tax. None appeared on behalf of the
assessee and hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte,
without the presence of the assessee.
                                     2                  I T A N o . 1 5 3 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 1








2.    We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. From the order passed vt
Ld Commissioner of Income tax, we notice that the Commissioner has
listed out items which have not been examined by the AO during the
course of assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3) on 27.2.2009.
According to Ld CIT, those issues should have been examined in order to
arrive at the right total income of the assessee.       Accordingly he has
initiated the impugned revision proceedings. A perusal of the AO would
show that the AO did not discuss anything about those issues.                        The
assessee has also not furnished any document to show that they were
examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The
failure on the part of the AO to examine the issues pointed out by the
Commissioner would render the assessment order erroneous and
prejudicial to the interest of revenue as per the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC).    Hence, we are of the view that the assessment
order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the
revenue. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order
passed by Commissioner and hence, we uphold the same.







3.   In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed
     Pronounced accordingly on 6th July, 2015.
           6th July, 2015    

  Sd                                     sd
(    / AMIT SHUKLA)                  (..  / B.R. BASKARAN)
     / JUDICIAL MEMBER                  / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

 Mumbai: 6th July,2015.

. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
                            3           I T A N o . 1 5 3 8 / Mu m / 2 0 1 1



        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.      / The Respondent.
3.     () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4.      / CIT concerned
5.      ,     ,  /
     DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6.     / Guard file.

                                             / BY ORDER,
True copy
                                       (Asstt. Registrar)
                                    ,  /ITAT, Mumbai