IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAMLAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2301/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2003-04) M/s Looms India, 126, Mahturadas Mill Comp, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. PAN:AABFL 0259P ...... Appellant Vs. ITO,Ward 18(2)(2), Mumbai. .... Respondent Appellant by : Shri M. Subramanium Respondent by : Shri A.Ramachandran Date of hearing : 21/09/2016 Date of pronouncement : 23/09/2016 ORDER PER G.S.PANNU,A.M: captioned appeal filed by assessee pertaining to assessment year 2003-04 is directed against order passed by CIT(A)- 29 Mumbai dated 19/01/2010 which in turn arises out of order passed by Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) dated 27/03/2006. 2. In this appeal, assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal, which are as follows:- 2 ITA No. 2301/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2003-04) 1. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in passing Appellate Order and that too without giving full and proper opportunity of being heard in matter. 2. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that none had attended from appellant side without appreciating facts that hearing was attended on various date as per notices issued by CIT(A) and written submission were also filed by appellant. 3. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is bad in law as appellate order was passed on 19-01- 2010 that is prior to date of hearing which was fixed on 22-01-2010 as per letter of adjournment dated 04-01-2010 filed on 05-01-2010. 4. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in passing appellate order without considering fully and properly submissions made during course of hearing proceedings. 5. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not accepting book results and confirming addition of amount of Rs.25, 00,0001- as suppressed income without appreciating that there was no difference in amount of closing stock 6. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming disallowance of amount of Rs.13,30,000/- u/s 40A(3) of I. T. Act without appreciating facts that purchases were directly connected with export business. 7. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) erred in confirming disallowance of amount of Rs.12,466/- out of motor car expenses claimed of Rs.62,333/-. 8. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,241/- out of depreciation on motor car claimed of Rs.6,208/- 9. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming disallowance of amount of Rs.26,042/- out of total telephone & telex expenses claimed of Rs 1,30,213/- 3 ITA No. 2301/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2003-04) 10. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming disallowance of amount of Rs.15,94,232/- being interest expenditure claimed without appreciating that interest free funds received were much more than interest free funds given that too is to same parties or their sister concern which could have been routed through partners capital accounts. 11. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in not allowing interest income on FDR as business profit which is eligible for deduction U/s. 80HHC of I.T. Act. 12 On facts and in circumstances of case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) ought to have at least given benefit of netting off by setting off interest expenses against interest income. 3. At time of hearing, Ld. Representative for assessee contended that order of CIT(A) suffers from pertinent infirmity as it has been passed without affording assessee full and proper opportunity of being heard. Ld. Representative for assessee pointed out that CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order inspite of fact that assessee did appear on various dates and indeed matter was finally adjourned for 22/01/2010, whereas CIT(A) has passed order on anterior date i.e. 19/01/2010 itself. In any case, it is pointed out that due to aforesaid reason say of assessee could not be made available to CIT(A), which has resulted in prejudice to assessee..The Ld. Representative for assessee submitted that appellant would be satisfied, if matter is remanded back to file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on merits of various issues raised, after allowing opportunity of being heard to assessee as per law. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative has not raised any serious objection with respect to aforesaid preliminary plea of assessee. 4 ITA No. 2301/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 2003-04) 5. Considering fact position and circumstances explained before us, we deem it fit and proper to set aside order of CIT(A) and restore matter back to his file for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after allowing assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. It is clarified that our decision to remand matter back to file of CIT(A) shall not be construed as any reflection on merits of various issues raised by assessee, which shall be dealt with by CIT(A) as per law. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, as above. Order pronounced in open court on 23/09/2016 Sd/- Sd/- (RAMLAL NEGI) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 23/09/2016 Vm, Sr. PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant , 2. Respondent. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Looms India v. ITO,Ward-18(2)(2), Mumbai