आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मंुबईुं ुंुं यायपीठ 'आई' मंुबईुं ुंुं ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " I" BENCH, MUMBAI
सवौी नरेि कुमार ब लै या, लेखा सदःय, एवंंंं डॉ. एस.ट).एम. पवलन, याियक सदःय के सम*
BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND Dr.S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1637/Mum/2012 ( िनधारण वष / Assessment Year :2008-09 M/s. Indman Media
Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Plot No. 8, Shah Industrial
Estate,
Off Veera Desai Road,
Andheri (W),
Mumbai-400 053
बनाम/
Vs.
The ACIT-11(1),
Aayakar Bhavan,
Mumbai-400 020
ःथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACI 1997B (अपीलाथ/ /Appellant) . . (ू1यथ/ / Respondent) अपीलाथ/ ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Ravinder Sindhu ू1यथ/ क3 ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram
सुनवाई क3 तार)ख / Date of Hearing :25.06.2014
घोषणा क3 तार)ख /Date of Pronouncement :25.06.2014
आदेश / O R D E R
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:
With this appeal the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai dt.31.1.2012 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09.
1
2. The sole grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3.50 lakhs on account of AIR information in respect of M/s. Yashraj Films.
3. The assessee is in the business of recording Audio, Video and Post production studio. The return for the year was filed on 30.9.2008. The same was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee.
3.1. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was confronted with the AIR information. The assessee was asked to reconcile the discrepancy in respect of the amount shown as paid by M/s. Yashraj Films of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. The assessee stated that the said amount has been wrongly shown in its name. The assessee has not done any work in M/s. Yashraj Film. The AO did not accept assessee's submission and added Rs. 3.50 lakhs.
4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success.
5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that no work has been done during the year by the assessee for Yashraj Films and the amount has been wrongly shown as received by M/s. Yashraj Films. The Ld. Counsel filed a confirmation letter from M/s. Yashraj Films to substantiate its claim.
6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.
2
7. We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and also the confirmation letter filed by M/s. Yashraj Films. We find that this letter was not filed before the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore this issue to the file of the AO. The assessee is directed to file the confirmation letter before the AO and AO is directed to decide this issue afresh after making due verification from M/s. Yashraj Films after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on
25.6.2014
.
आदेश क3 धोषणा खुले यायालय म8 9दनांकः25.6.2014 को क3 गई । Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. S.T.M. PAVALAN) (N.K. BILLAIYA)
याियक सदःय /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मंुबई Mumbai; 9दनांक Dated 25.6.2014
व.िन.स./ RJ , Sr. PS
3
आदेशेेे क3 ूितिल प अमे षतेेे /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ/ / The Appellant
2. ू1यथ/ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु=(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
4. आयकर आयु= / CIT
5. वभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मंुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसारे ुे ुे ु / BY ORDER, स1या पत ूित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकारंंं
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मंुबई / ITAT, Mumbai
4
Comments