RANESH TEXSTONE P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ITO 9(3)-4, MUMBAI

ITA 4117/MUM/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2010

Appeal Details

RSA Number 411719914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AABCR1012R
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4117/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant RANESH TEXSTONE P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 9(3)-4, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 31-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 14-05-2010
Next Hearing Date 14-05-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 03-07-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN (JM) & R.K. PANDA (AM) I.T.A.NO. 4117/MUM/09 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) RANESH TEXSTONE PVT. LTD. C/O. VINOD N. TALATI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT 104 VIDYA CHAMBERS 1 ST FLOOR 305 NANA CHOWK GRANT ROAD MUMBAI-400 007. VS. ITO 9(3)-4 MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN/GIR NO. : AABCR1012R ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.V. LAKHANI DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH ORDER PER N.V. VASUDEVAN JM :- THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 3.3.2005 OF LEARNED CIT(A)-IX MUMBAI RELATING TO A.Y. 2001- 02. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. DURING THE PREVIOUS Y EAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2001-02 IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXP ORT OF GRANITE BLOCKS CUT INTO PIECES. IT FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR A. Y. 2001-02 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1 22 540/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NO T COMPLY WITH THE VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UND ER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 15 40 972/- AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM H.P. TRIVEDI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR A LOAN CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITOR. THE ASSESSEE HAD SU BMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CREDITOR WAS A NON-RESID ENT INDIAN AND THE RANESH TEXSTONE PVT. LTD. 2 CONFIRMATION WOULD BE FILED SHORTLY. HOWEVER NO CO NFIRMATION WAS FILED AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE CRE DIT IN QUESTION AS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 15 40 972/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. AS AN EXPORTER OF GRANITE BLOCKS CUT INTO PIECES THE ASS ESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF 80% OF THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPORT. IN TERMS OF SECTION 80HHC(3)(B) THE PROFITS DERIVED FROM EXPOR T HAD TO BE ARRIVED AT BY REDUCING FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT COST. THE ASSESSEE HAD INCLUDED A SUM OF RS. 1 10 504/- BEING GAIN AS A RESULT OF FLUCTUATION IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE. ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER SUCH RECEIPTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INCOME DERIVED FROM T HE BUSINESS EXPORTS AND HE THEREFORE REDUCED THE TOTAL TURNOVER BY A SU M OF RS. 1 10 504/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INTEREST ON FD OF RS. 15 247/-. THEY PAID INTEREST TO BANK ON BORROWINGS OF RS. 69 775/-. WHI LE ARRIVING AT THE INDIRECT COST TO BE REDUCED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVE R THE ASSESSEE SET OFF THE INTEREST RECEIPTS AGAINST INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND CLAIMED THE NET INTEREST PAID AS A COMPONENT OF INDIRECT COST. ACCO RDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ENTIRE RECEIPT WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONS IDERED AS INDIRECT COST WITHOUT SETTING OFF INTEREST RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THEREFORE INCREASED THE INDIRECT COST TO BE REDUCED FROM THE EXPORT TURNOVER BY RS. 15 247/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS DETERMINED THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC AT RS. 1 65 143/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2 65 744/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS DETERMINED T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS FOLLOWS :- NET PROFIT AS PER P&L 336151 ADD : PROVISION FOR TAXATION _52133 388284 ADD : DISALLOWANCE AS PER DISCUSSED ABOVE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT 1540972 1929256 LESS : DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA (U/S. 80HHC)(AS REWORKED ABOVE) 165132 1764113 RANESH TEXSTONE PVT. LTD. 3 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LEARNE D CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPEAL WAS FIXE D FOR HEARING BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) ON 2.2.2005 23.2.2005 AND 2.3.2005 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND NO GROUND TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED C IT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 5. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALL ENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 15 40 972/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND THE REDUCTION OF THE INDIRECT COST WHIL E COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC BY RS. 15 247/-. IN GROUND NO. 2 3&4 THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF LEADING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CASH CREDIT OF RS. 15 40 972/-. GROUND NO. 2 3&4 RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS FOLLOWS :- 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE A PPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE APPELLANT IS A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH CREDIT OF RS. 15 40 972/-. THE CAPAC ITY IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE LENDER CAN BE ESTAB LISHED. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF IT(A) OF RS. 15 40 972/- MAY BE DEL ETED. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APPE LLANT SUBMITS THAT THEY WERE PREVENTED ON ACCOUNT OF REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) A ND PRODUCING THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES. THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE ONE MORE OP PORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TO LEAD EVIDENCES I N SUPPORT OF THE CASH CREDIT OF RS. 15 40 972/-. 4) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE APPELLANT MAY BE GIVEN ONE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDIT OF RS. 15 40 972/-. 6. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL ON 3.7.2009. UNDER SECTION 253(3) OF THE ACT AN APPEA L AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TO BE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE RANESH TEXSTONE PVT. LTD. 4 COMMUNICATION TO THE ASSESSEE OF THE ORDER. THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WAS PASSED ON 3.3.2005. IT IS THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT HE HAD MADE AN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT(A) ON 21.1.2009 AND WAS GIVEN A COPY BY THE OFFICE OF LEARNED CIT(A ) ONLY ON 18.5.2009. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). THI S ASPECT WILL BE EXAMINED WHEN WE DEAL WITH GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSE SSEE. 7. ON MERITS OF THE APPEAL LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORIZED CAPITAL OF THE ASSESS EE WAS RS. 1 LAKH DIVIDED INTO 1000 EQUITY SHARES OF RS. 100/- EACH. THE SHARE CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AS NON RESIDENT INDIAN. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA GAVE PER MISSION TO MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO INVEST ON REPATRIATION BASIS IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS SITUATED AT 14A GREENFILEDS 40 S. V. ROAD SANTA CRUZ (WEST) MUMBAI- 400 054 WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL PREMISE WHERE MRS. D INSUKHBALA P. TRIVEDI THE MOTHER OF HARESH P.TRIVEDI WHO WAS ST AYING ALONE. SHE WAS SUFFERING FROM PARKINSON DISEASE AND SHE EXPIRED ON 1.11.2007. AS THE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY PLACE TO CARRY ON BUSINESS THE RESIDENCE ADDRESS WAS GIVEN AS THE REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS. THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY WERE MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI MRS. PARUL H. T RIVEDI AND MR. G. RAMACHDRAN. AS ALREADY STATED MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI ONE OF THE MAIN PROMOTERS OF THE COMPANY WAS A NON-RESIDENT INDIAN. HE WAS RESIDING IN USA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2001- 02 AND ALSO WAS RESIDING IN USA AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDER U/S. 144 OF I.T. ACT 1961 WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAD COME TO IND IA FROM THE YEAR 2000 TO 2008 FOR ONLY 237 DAYS. THE OTHER DIRECTORS SMT. PARUL H. TRIVEDI IS WIFE OF MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI. SHE WAS A HOUSEWI FE AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUORUM SHE WAS MADE THE DIRECTOR. SHE WA S ALSO RESIDING WITH HER HUSBAND IN USA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RE LEVANT TO A.Y. 2001- 02 AND WAS ALSO IN USA AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDER U /S. 144 WAS PASSED. RANESH TEXSTONE PVT. LTD. 5 MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI WAS CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN D UBAI UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE M/S. STONESCAPE FACTORY LLC FOR THE PERIO D 1994 TO 2000. HE SHIFTED TO USA IN THE YEAR 2000 AND WAS RESIDING AT 2939 HEATHER TRAIL CLEAR WATER FL 33761 TILL 8.9.2004. HIS MOTHER SMT . DINSUKHBALA P. TRIVEDI SUFFERED FROM PARKINSON DISEASE AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO CURE THIS DISEASE IN USA. HE SHIFTED WITH HIS FAMILY ON 8.9.2004 TO DUBAI AND CONTINUED TO CARRY ON HIS BUSINESS AT DUBAI. HIS MO THER SMT. DINSUKHBALA P. TRIVEDI WAS SHIFTED TO MUMBAI AND WA S RESIDING AT 14A GREENFIELDS 40 S.V. ROAD SANTACRUZ (WEST) MUMBA I-400 054. AS SHE WAS ALONE AND WAS HANDICAPPED AND HENCE ONE DOMESTI C HELP WAS PROVIDED TO HER AND HIS NAME WAS MR. SANTOSH SAKHAR E. MR. SANTOSH SAKHARE WAS A DOMESTIC SERVANT WHO WAS EMPLOYED IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2004 TO LOOK AFTER SMT. DINSUKHBALA P. TRI VEDI. HE WAS NOT THE EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY. THE TOTAL AFFAIRS OF THE COMPANY WERE MANAGED IN INDIA BY MR. G. RAMACHANDRAN WHO WAS THE EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. HE DREW THE REMU NERATION FROM THE COMPANY AS AN EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR. MR. HARESH P. TRIV EDI WAS RESIDING IN USA AND THEREAFTER IN DUBAI AND THE FACT THAT HE HA S COME TO INDIA ONLY FOR 237 DAYS IN A SPAN OF 8 YEARS THE AFFAIRS WAS L OOKED AFTER BY MR. G. RAMACHANDRAN. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2001-02 WAS SIGNED BY MR. G. RAMACHNDRAN. THE DIRECTORS REPORT WAS SIGNED BY MR. G. RAMACHANDRAN. THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OPERATED SINGLY BY MR. G. RAMACHANDRAN. DURING A.Y. 2000-01 MR. HARESH P. TRI VEDI HAD INTRODUCED RS. 18 000/- AND DURING A.Y. 2001-02 MR . HARESH P. TRIVEDI INTRODUCED RS. 15 22 972/- AS LOANS. THESE AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN BY HIM FROM HIS NON-RESIDENT EXTERNAL ACCOUNT AS WELL AS NON RESIDENT ORDINARY ACCOUNT WHICH WERE MAINTAINED BY HIM IN IN DIA. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF FEMA 1999 ONLY A NON-RESIDENT INDIAN CAN OPEN A NON- RESIDENT EXTERNAL ACCOUNT AND NON-RESIDENTIAL ORDIN ARY ACCOUNT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2001-02 THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDIT AS MR. G. RAMACHANDRAN WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER THE AFFA IRS OF THE COMPANY DID NOT ATTEND TO ANY OF THE MATTERS OF THE ASSESSE E. MR. G. RANESH TEXSTONE PVT. LTD. 6 RAMACHANDRAN DID NOT ATTEND THE OFFICE FROM SEPTEMB ER 2002 AND WAS NOT COOPERATING AT ALL WITH MR. VINOD TALATI CHART ERED ACCOUNTANT WHO WAS HANDLING THE INCOME TAX MATTER. IN SPITE OF SEV ERAL REMINDERS AND REQUEST MR. G. RAMACHANDRAN DID NOT ATTEND TO THE I NCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT GIVE ANY DETAILS OR INFORMA TION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE PASSED THE ORDER EX PARTE U/S. 14 4 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEF ORE LEARNED CIT(A). NOBODY ATTENDED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AND LEARNED C IT(A) HAS PASSED EXPARTE ORDER DATED 3.3.2005. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE APPELLATE ORDER. 8. THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THEREAFTER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 179 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND ISSUED NOTICE ON 11 .10.2002. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT AS MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI WAS OUT OF INDIA AND THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY HAD COME TO STAND STILL NO PROPER NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE DIRECTORS. THE COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY EMPLOYE ES AFTER 1.4.2001. THE REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS WAS THE RESIDENTIAL A DDRESS OF MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI AND PROBABLY THE NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE S AID ADDRESS. AN ORDER U/S. 179 WAS PASSED ON 18.8.2008 AND THIS ORDER WAS AFFIXED ON THE DOOR AS THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES WERE CLOSED FOR LAST 4 YEARS. WHEN MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI CAME TO INDIA ON 9.12.2008 HE FOUND THAT SOME ORDER WAS AFFIXED ON THE DOOR. HE CONTACT MR. HEMANT JADIA A DVOCATE AND REQUESTED HIM TO ENQUIRE AS TO WHAT IS THE STATUS O F THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). MR. HEMANT JADIA WROTE A LET TER TO LEARNED CIT(A) ON 22.1.2009 REQUESTING FOR THE STATUS OF THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISH A COPY OF THE ORDER IF ANY IF IT HAS BEEN PASSED. UNDER THE DIRECTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) THE NECESSARY FEES WERE PAID ON 18.5.2009 AND THEREAFTER THE COPY OF THE ORDER WAS GIVEN ON 1 8.5.2009 TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED BEF ORE US A COPY OF THE MANNER OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER U/S. 179 OF THE ACT ON THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE AT PREMISES NO. 14-A GREEN FILED S.V. RO AD SANTACRUZ WEST RANESH TEXSTONE PVT. LTD. 7 MUMBAI-400 054 ON 14.8.2008. THE REPORT OF THE INS PECTOR IN THIS REGARD SHOWS THAT SHE EFFECTED SERVICE OF THE ORDER U/S. 179 BY AFFIXTURE. THE REPORT ALSO REFERS TO THE FACT THAT 4 YEARS PRI OR TO 14.8.2008 THE PREMISES REMAINED CLOSED AND NONE OF THE DIRECTORS WERE STAYING THERE. 10. REGARDING THE SOURCE OF RS. 15 40 972/- WHICH WAS GIVEN AS A LOAN BY MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI TO THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY THE ACCOUNT OF MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AT PAGE 8 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. PERUSAL OF THE SAME REVEALS THAT MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI HAD GIVEN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. OPENING BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2000 RS. 18000 ADD : (I) PAYMENT MADE BY MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI TO M/S. KRISHNA STONE SUPPLIERS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF GRANITE RS. 5 01 500 (II) LOAN ON 24.8.2000 RS. 98 500 LOAN ON 26.8.2000 RS. 1 00 000 LOAN ON 25.8.2000 RS. 8 50 000 RS. 15 68 000 LESS : WITHDRAWAL OF LOAN RS. 27 027.75 RS. 15 40 972.75 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE BANK STAT EMENT OF MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI WITH HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORA TION VILLE PAREL BRANCH SHOWING PAYMENT OF RS. 5 01 500 TO KRISHANA STONE SUPPLIERS ON 23.8.2000 RS. 98 500 AND RS. 1 00 000 TO THE ASSE SSEE ON 24.8.2000 AND 26.8.2000. THESE PAYMENTS ARE FROM MR. HARESH P . TRIVEDIS NRO ACCOUNT NO. 013-033840-066. WITH THE SAME BANK AND BRANCH MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI AND P.H. TRIVEDI HAD NRO ACCOUNT NO. 091-874792- 077 FROM WHICH A BANKERS CHEQUE FOR RS. 8 50 000/- HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 013-033840-00 6 PRIOR TO THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS MADE BY MR. HARESH P. TRIVEDI TO THE ASSESSEE AND KRISHNA STONE SUPPLIERS THERE IS A DEPOSIT OF RS. 7 00 000 BY CHEQUE. THIS SUM WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A LOAN FRO M HIS SISTER MRS. BHAVANA U. PANCHOLI AND A CONFIRMATION FROM HER HAS ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE US WHICH IS AT PAGE 27 OF ASSESSEES PAPER B OOK. A COPY OF THE RANESH TEXSTONE PVT. LTD. 8 BANK STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT NO. 091-874792-007 ALSO S HOWS THAT PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CHEQUE FOR RS. 8 50 000/- TO THE ASSESSEE THERE WERE SEVERAL RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. 11. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ASSESSEES FAILURE TO ATTEND A ND FILE EVIDENCE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE DO CUMENTS NOW FILED BEFORE US ARE NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISS UE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DOCUMENTS NOW FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND AT PAGES 8 TO 28 OF PAPER BOOK ARE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO TH E CREDIT OF RS. 15 40 974/- IS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL CONSIDER THE ISSUE IN TH E LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOW FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. THE ASSESSEE WILL ALSO BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE SUCH OTHER ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER WILL CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRE SH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS WITHIN TIME I.E. FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) B Y THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED GROUND NO. 6 BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL WHICH READS AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE APPE LLANT SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CORRECTLY WORKED OUT DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED RS . 15 247/- AS PART OF THE INDIRECT COST AND THE SAME VIEW IS C ONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A). THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC MAY BE COMPUTED IGNORING RS. 15 247/- AS PART OF IN DIRECT COST. 13. THIS ISSUE ALSO REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS SET AS IDE AND THE ISSUE IS REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDE RATION. RANESH TEXSTONE PVT. LTD. 9 14. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST DAY OF MAY 2010. SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31 ST MAY 2010 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR CONCERNED MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI PS