Jai Naresh Aggarwal, Gurgaon V. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 1184/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4233 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1184/DEL/2016 & 6316/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2010-11 JAI NARESH AGGARWAL, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PROP. MAHA LAXMI TRAVELS, GURGAON 118A, PHASE-V, UDYOG VIHAR, GURGAON (PAN: ADNPA8846J) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. SAMPATH, ADV. & SH. V. RAJA KUMAR, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. ANIL SHARMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING ON : 05/10/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 13/10/20 16 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SE PARATE ORDERS DATED 1.2.2016 AND 30.9.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-I, GURGAON RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 & 2010-11 RESPE CTIVELY. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENC E, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BY DEALING WITH ITA NO . 1184/DEL/2016 (AY 2011-12). 2. THE GROUND RAISED IN ITA NO. 1184/DEL/2016 (AY 2 011-12) READ AS UNDER:- 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 26,20,125/ - TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THE ACTION BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, UNWARRANTED AND UNJUST MUST BE QUASHED W ITH DIRECTIONS FOR RELIEF. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 6316/DEL/2015 (AY 2010-11) READ AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ERRED IN: 1. DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 17,69,528/- U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT; 2. RS. 7,91,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON HOUSING LOAN; 3. REDUCING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY RS. 1,27,500/- AND RS. 66,256/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER EXPENSES AND INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENTS RESPECTIVELY. ALL THE ABOVE ACTION BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, UNWARRANTED AND UNJUST MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECTIONS FOR RELIEF. 4. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATE D HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE HAS STATED THAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THEM. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE W HICH CAN BE 3 PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, IF THIS BENCH GRANTED AN OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FILED IN ITA NO. 1184/DEL/2015 ONE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES PAGES 1 TO 9 HAVING THE COPY OF C ONFIRMATION FROM JITENDRA SANGHAVI & CO. IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE CAP ITAL LIMITED; COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM NSON & CO. IN THE CASE OF TATA CAPITAL LTD; COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM GYANESH GUPTA & CO. IN THE CAS E OF INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED AND COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM SARDA AND PAREEK IN THE CASE OF TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD. AND IN ITA NO. 6316/DEL/2015 FILED PAPER BOOK HAVING PAGES 1 TO 56 CONTAINING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALONGWI TH AUDIT REPORT WITH ANNEXURES; 2 ND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A); 3 RD WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A); COPY O F CONFIRMATION FROM SARDA & PAREEK IN THE CASE OF TATA MOTORS FINANCE L IMITED; COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM JITENDRA SANGHAVI & CO. IN THE CA SE OF RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD; COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM GYANESHA GUP TA & CO. IN THE CASE OF INDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED AND COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM NSON & CO. IN THE CASE OF TATA CAPITAL LTD. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 7. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS T HE PAPER BOOKS DETAILING THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK S REQUIRES 4 THOROUGH EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THERE FORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO TH E FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AS PER LAW, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL TH E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRE CTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E HIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE AND AL SO PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/10/2016 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 13/10/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES