IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2366/M/2012 (Assessment Year:2009-2010) Bernhard Schulte Shipping (India) ACIT -10(3), Private Limited, 4 th Floor, Room No. 473, Vs. 401, Olympia, 4 th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai 400 020. Mumbai 400 076. PAN : AABCB7797H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.R.V. Raghavan Respondent by : Miss Anupama Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 08.09 .2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by assessee on 10.4.2012 is against order of CIT (A)-22, Mumbai dated 9.2.2012 for assessment year 2009-2010. In this appeal assessee raised two main grounds which read as under:- 1. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering and not disposing off Ground no.1 (iii) of your appellant in his appellate order dated Feb.9.2012. 2. (i) CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in not considering and not disposing off Ground no.2(ii) of your appellants. (ii) CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in stating vide paragraphs 3.2 at page 3 of his order, that during course of appellant proceeeings it was submitted that AO had never asked for any bills and vouchers for legal and professional fees. Further, appellant had also requested for adequate opportunity of being heard but was not provided so, when in fact lapse on part of AO in doing so, was brought CIT (A). (iii) CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in his statement at paragraph 3.2 at page 3 of his order by not considering and not disposing off ground no.2 (ii) of your appellants which specifically state that learned ACIT has erred in law and on facts in disallowing above amount of Rs. 14,94,176/- without asking any documentary support and hence, denied your appellants natural justice. 2. At outset, Ld Counsel for assessee brought our attention to above grounds and submitted that issue raised in grounds relates to allocation of cost to house property income qua insurance costs and legal and professional fees. In this regard, Ld Counsel for assessee brought our attention to paper book filed on 1.9.2015 and mentioned it contains 1048 pages and same are filed for first time before Tribunal and not before Revenue Authorities. Though there is no prayer in covering letter of paper book, Ld Counsel for assessee submitted that they are filed for first time before us and prayed for admitting same and remanding matter to file of AO for fresh adjudication. 3. After hearing both parties and on going through paper book filed before us, we find, said additional evidence constitutes useful information which goes to root of matter pending for adjudication before us. Considering importance, we admit said additional evidence and direct AO to make use of same in making assessment properly. AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee as per principles of natural justice. Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 23rd September, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; 23.9.2016 . . .OKK , Sr. PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Bernhard Schulte Shipping (India) Private Limited v. ACIT-10(3), Mumbai