IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 1 07 9 /DEL/201 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 8 - 0 9 ) RAJ KUMAR YADAV, F - 3/408, SANGAM VIHAR, NEW DELHI - 1100 62 . PAN - A HHPK7397Q ( APPELLANT) VS IT O , WARD - 22(3), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SH.B.K. MANJANI, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH.GAGAN SOOD, SR.DR ORDER BY THE PRESENT APPEAL THE ASSESSEE ASSAILS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 1 3.1 2 .201 3 OF CIT(A) - X I, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 200 8 - 0 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR . 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF FABRICATION OF SHEET METAL DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS. 2,57,211/ - . REFERRING ONLY TO THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED IN APPEAL BY THE CIT(A WHEREIN A CHALLENGE IS POSED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, IT IS SEEN THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.2,56,814/ - WAS MADE U/S 41(1)(A) IN RESPECT OF A CREDITOR M/S AMIT ENTERPRISES . APART FROM THAT ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 10,000/ - WAS MADE ON NOTIONAL BASIS BY CHARGING NOTIONAL INTEREST AT 12% ON INTEREST FREE LOAN GIVEN TO ANKIT GOEL . THE LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD A RUNNING ACCOUNT WITH ITS CREDITOR AND CONSEQUENTLY PART PAYMENT WAS MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND PART PAYMENT WAS PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE I N RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) THE CREDITOR DID NOT APPEAR AS THE NOTICE RETURNED WITH THE COMMENT LEFT , I T WAS SUBMI TTED T H A T THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. THE LD. AR SOUGHT AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY QUA THE SECOND ISSUE OF NOTIONAL INTEREST DATE OF HEARING 02 .0 7 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 .0 8 .2015 I.T.A .NO. - 1 07 9/ DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 IT WAS HIS SUBMIS SIONS TH AT THE LOAN HAD BEEN ADVANCED FROM ASSESSEE S OWN CAPITAL. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION T HAT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID CLAIM MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED BY TAKING FRESH EVIDENCES ON RECORD. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THESE ARE RELEVANT AND CRUCIAL EVIDENCES GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AS SUCH OPPORTUNITY TO FILE THE SAME MAY BE DIRECTED. T HE LD.SR.DR S UBMITTED THAT IN CASE FRESH EVIDENCE ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED THEN THEY MAY BE FILED BEFORE THE AO OTHERWISE HE WOULD PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE I MPUGNED ORDER. THE LD.AR STATED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO FILE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AS THE EVIDENCE FILED WILL NECESSARILY BE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, C ONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTUAL POSITION IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIO NS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH , IT IS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO RE STORE THESE 2 ADDITIONS BACK TO T H E FILE O F THE AO GIVING ASSESSEE LIBERTY TO PLACE EVIDENCE S IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS HOPED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED IS UTILIZED GAINFULLY AND IS NOT ABUSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FA ILING WHICH THE AO WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS A SPEAKI NG ORDER ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 7 T H OF AUGUST, 2015. S D / - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 0 7 /08 /2015 * AMIT KUMAR * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI