FOOD RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS CENTRE,NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD 1(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 1191/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Food Research and Analysis Centre, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The primary contention was the addition of Rs. 21,64,544 to the assessee's income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that this addition was unjustified and based on an erroneous interpretation of the facts, particularly concerning the transition from an old PAN to a new one following a name change. The Assessing Officer had noted discrepancies in the receipts reported under the old and new PANs, leading to the addition. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, finding the assessee's explanations contradictory and insufficient. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471567 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: DILIP KUMAR RAINA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1191/Del/2023 A.YR. : 2011-12 FOOD RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS CENTRE, PLOT NO. 2A, SECTOR-8, DWARKA, NEW DELHI – 77 (PAN: AAATF0160G) VS. ITO, WARD 1(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Shri Dilip Kumar Raina, CA Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 13.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.03.2025 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre, dated 23.02.2023, relating to assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- i) That the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition order passed by AO is not based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 | P a g e ii) That the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition order passed by AO is against the principles of natural justice and is bad in law. iii) That the addition of Rs. 21,64,544/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, unjustified, unwarranted and unreasonable. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has not filed its return of income for assessment year 2011-12 in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. However, assessee vide its submissions dated 27.12.2018 has responded as under:- * As the name of society was changed in August, 2008 from “Food Research and Analysis Centre” to “FICCI Research and Analysis Centre”. In the process of the amendment of the PAN AAATF0160G initiated in January, 2009 a new PAN was allotted. For details please refer the letter dated 13.4.2009 filed with Addl. CIT(E) Range-1 submitted on 17.4.2009. The assessee has enclosed copy of the said letter. * Understand the Department has not updated its records regarding the intimated facts. * Since AY 2009-10 we have been filing return in the name of FICCI Research and Analysis Centre * Since AY 2011-12 we have been filing return with the new PAN AAAAF1115E in the name of FICCI Research and Analysis Centre. * The society has filed its ITR on 30.9.2011 and copy of ITR has been enclosed. * The case was also assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and copy of the order has been enclosed. * The reconciliation of TDS credited to its old PAN AAATF0160G with amount incorporated in the books of account has also been enclosed. 3 | P a g e 2.1 However, the AO was not convinced with the aforesaid submissions, hence, he held that assessee has obtained two PAN and all the receipts have not been accounted for and concluded as under:- “The aforesaid submissions of the assesse have been duly considered. On perusal of the reconciliation of TDS (party wise) sheet submitted by the assessee. It is observed that whole receipts as per 26AS under the old PAN have not been accounted of under new PAN, as claimed by the assessee. On having compared the 26AS of both the PANs, it is observed that the assessee has accounted for the receipt being reflected in the 26AS of old PAN, in respect of Inderprastha Medical Corpn Ltd. (Rs. 8,872/). Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 35,850/- Nestle india Limited (Rs. 82,894/-], and Bacardi India Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 11,030/-), totaling to Rs. 1,38,046/- in its ITR filed under new PAN. Thus, the difference of Rs. 21,64,544/- [Rs. 23,02,590/- - Rs. 1,38,046/-_ has not been offered for taxation by the assessee in its ITR filed under the new PAN. Therefore, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21,64,540/- is brought to tax in the hands of the assessee.” 3. Against the above order, assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and in appeal Ld. CIT(A) noted the submissions of the assessee as under:- “On consideration of the appellant’s submissions, I have found the same are contradictory and unconnected to the issue on hand. It is the contention of the appellant that the appellant is a society under the name Food Research and Analysis Center and filed its return of income under this name till the year 2008, thereafter the name was changed to FICCI Research and Analysis Center and also obtained new PAN no. as AAAAF1115E, as a result, the return of income started filing under the ne3w name and new PAN since 2011-12 onwards. It is further contended that income tax department had allotted new PAN instead of changing the name of the society. Therefore, income tax department had created two sets of records for the same assessee which fact was ignored by the AO and made an addition of Rs. 4 | P a g e 21,64,544/-. Thus appellant requested to delete the addition. 4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, Ld. CIT(A) has held as under:- “As I observed here in above that appellant's submissions are contradictory because new PAN cannot be allotted without appellant's application. Moreover, before me this averment is not taken by the appellant. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Appellant may have requested the Income Tax Department for allotment of new PAN without which new PAN wouldn't have been allotted. First of all, having two PAN for the same assessee is itself against the rules of PAN allotment. Facts reveal that the first PAN is still in operation when another PAN was also obtained which is against the rules of PAN allotment. Further, before me appellant has not taken any such argument of cancellation of the old PAN no. It is the primary onus on the part of the appellant to get the old PAN cancelled before obtaining new PAN which has not been done and this fact can be found from the record. In-view of the stated facts, I do not find any error in reopening the appellant's assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 Coming to the merits of the case, the AO had considered the receipts reflected in form 26AS and found out the discrepancy as the disclosed receipts in the return of income. On perusal of the assessment order I have observed that appellant did not offer any explanation as to why such discrepancy occurred in its books of accounts. Considering all these facts, I am fully agree with the AO's decision of reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act and bringing the discrepancy in receipts to tax. In-view of the above stated reasons I hereby confirm the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 21,64,544/. The ground no 1 to 5 are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the matter has not been appropriately argued before the authorities below. He submitted that the arguing counsel who was appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) has actually died hence, he pleaded that one opportunity may be granted before the AO to canvass the case properly. Ld. DR has no objection to this proposition. Upon careful consideration and in the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the 5 | P a g e Assessing Officer with the directions to decide the same, afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13/03/2025 in the Open Court. Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) 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 "