FINDMYPROPERTY PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 5(1)(3), NOIDA

ITA 4170/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves FINDMY PROPERTY PRIVATE LIMITED, the appellant, contesting an assessment order passed by the AO under sections 143(3), 143(3A), and 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, which included disallowances and additions related to commission expenses and loans. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, leading to the appeal before the ITAT. The appellant argued that the assessment was made without proper jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. The ITAT noted the procedural lapses in the lower assessments, including the failure to properly represent due to the illness and subsequent death of the director's mother, and decided to remit the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31021 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAANTANU JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4170/Del/2024 Asstt. Year : 2018-19 FINDMY PROPERTY PRIVATE VS. ITO, WARD 5(1)(3), LIMITED, NEW DELHI B-50, LGF, SOUTH EXTENSION-II, NEW DELHI – 49 (PAN: AACCF7841B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Shaantanu Jain, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 23.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 12.2.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi on the following grounds:- i) That the action taken u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of Act and consequent assessment framed, as upheld by the CIT(A) is vitiated, without jurisdiction and contrary to law. 2 | P a g e ii) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of AO in framing the impugned assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and also without observing the principles of natural justice. iii) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of AO in making a disallowance of RS. 82,39,773/- on account of commission paid and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principle of natural justice. iv) That in any case and in any view of the matter action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the action of AO in making a disallowance of Rs. 82,39,773/- on account of commission paid, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. v) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of AO in making an addition of Rs. 2,39,43,999/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of loan taken and 3 | P a g e that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. vi) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the action of AO in making an addition of Rs. 24,17,999/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of loan taken from Shri Pawan Kumar Jasuja, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. vii) That in any case and in any view of the matter action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the action of AO in making an addition of Rs. 2,15,36,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act on account of loan taken from Finlaee Medha Private Limited is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. viii) That the assessment so framed and upheld and addition made suffers from perverse findings and is contrary to the facts on record and the same needs to be set aside. ix) That the levy of interest under the Act is disputed and as such unsustainable in law besides being excessive. x) The appellant craves leave for adducing necessary evidence, amendments and explanations including written one to the aforesaid grounds and also raise additional grounds in the course of hearing of the appellate proceedings. 4 | P a g e 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 151 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasonable cause for the same has been attributed to the illness of the Director’s mother, who was looking after the matter. Ultimately, the mother died with cancer. Upon hearing both the parties, we condone the delay in dispute. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Company and engaged in the business of real estate on fee or contract basis. The assessee company filed its return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 06.03.2019 admitting a total income at Nil. In this case assessment order was passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act on 08.04.2021, making additions on account of commission expenses paid, and loans of Rs. 2,39,43,999/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) passed an exparte order and affirmed the AO’s order. Against the aforesaid order, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assesse submitted that due to illness of the Director’s mother, who ultimately died, assessee could not represent its case properly before the lower authorities. He further submitted that additional evidences needs to be filed in this case and prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the AO to consider the issues afresh. Ld. DR did not have any objection to the proposition made by the Ld. AR. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view, that interest of 5 | P a g e justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh by considering the additional evidences, if any, and provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to file its additional evidences before the AO to enable him to consider the same. We hold and direct accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03.02.2025. SD/- SD/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "