ASHRIYA CONSULTIVE (OPC) PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD V. ITO, WARD- 1(1), FARIDABAD

ITA 3711/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ashriya Consultive (OPC) Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, sustaining the addition of Rs 2,89,90,801 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2021-22. The addition was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to non-deduction of TDS on purchases. The assessee argued that the assessment was based on whims and surmises without concrete evidence, and that principles of natural justice were violated. The Tribunal noted the assessee's documents were impounded by the DRI, preventing proper representation, and thus decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31557 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR SINGLA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3711/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2021-22 ASHRIYA CONSULTIVE (OPC) PVT. LTD., B-576, NEHRU GROUND, MAIN ROAD NIT FARIDABAD HARYANA-121001 (PAN: AAQCA1100J) VS. ITO, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD CGO COMPLEX, NEW INDUSTRIAL TOWNSHIP 4, FARIDABAD HARYANA-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Shri Vijay Kumar Singla, CA Respondent by : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 02.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 02.04.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 29.06.2024, relating to assessment year 2021-22 on the following grounds:- 1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO in making additions of Rs 2,89,90,801 on account of disallowance of 30% purchases u/s 40(a)(ia) being purchases on which no TDS has been deducted without following any procedure due to 2 | P a g e which the Assessment Order is bad in law, void-ab-initio and is liable to set aside in full 2) The Ld AO has eared in law and facts of the case that Books of Accounts have never been rejected during assessment proceedings. Whole of the assessment has been made just on whims and surmises of the Ld AO. No concrete evidence has been placed on record by Ld AO 3) That the Assessment order of the Ld Assessing Officer is bad in law and facts as it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant due to lack of principles of natural justice or violation of principles of natural justice 4) That the Appellant prays for the grant of permission to add, alter, delete, modify, any or all of the grounds of appeal at any time on or before or during the time of hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee, Ashriya Consultive (OPC) Private Limited, is a Company. It had filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration i.e., AY 2021-22 on 30.03.2022 declaring total income of Rs.6,39,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The notices u/s. 143(2), u/s. 142(1) and show cause notice issued and served. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had not furnished any evidence of deducting tax at source on payment of Rs. 9,66,36,004/- to four parties for supply of manpower. Therefore, the AO disallowed 30% of Rs.9,66,36,004/- i.e., Rs. 2,89,90,801/- by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO passed order 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 28.12.2022 determining total income at Rs. 2,96,30,451/-. Against the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) noted that assessee has not responded properly, 3 | P a g e hence, he proceeded to confirm the AO’s action. Aggrieved with the Ld. CIT(A)’s action, assessee is in appeal before us. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that proper representation before the Ld. CIT(A) could not be made, as the assessee’s documents were impounded by the DRI, hence, assessee could not furnish anything. He prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to properly canvass the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, he submitted in identical situation in other group case the Tribunal similarly restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR did not have any objection to this proposition. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02/04/2025. Sd/- (SUDHIR PAREEK) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "