Naresh Chandra Bhayana, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-41(2), New Delhi

ITA 1345/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7321 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: LAKSHAY GO Y A L
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 208

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI SMC BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1345/DEL/2018 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14] NARESH CHANDRA BHAYANA, VS. ITO, WARD-41(2 ), PROP. M/S KATHURIA PORTFOLIOS, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DE LHI 278, AMBICA VIHAR, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110 063 (PAN: AALPB6793N) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY: SHRI RAMESH GOYAL, CA & SH. LAKSHAY GOYAL, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR . DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS-15], NEW DELHI DATED 29.01.2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD BOTH IN LAW AND AGAINST FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN PASSING EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON A/C OF THE FOLLOWING:- A) LOAN OF RS. 10,00,000/- FROM APG BUILDERS PVT. LTD. B) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 50,000/- ON A/C OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES. C) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,05,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE DECIDED THE CA SE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM. HE HAS ALSO FILED SOME A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND REQUEST ED THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRE THOROUGH CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THEREFORE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO FOR FR ESH CONSIDERATION WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO CONSIDER THE DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN WHICH THE LD. DR STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A), EVEN AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT O PPORTUNITY BEFORE THEM. HE REQUESTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT 3 DECISION DATED 27.6.2018 IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 VERSUS ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR DECIDED IN ITA NO. R/TAX APPEAL NO. 710-717 OF 2018 APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR, ALONGWITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. APPLICATION FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/R 29 OF THE ITA T RULES, 1963 IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE PHOTOCOPY OF CONF IRMATION OF ACCOUNTS DATED 16.11.2018; COPY OF ITR VERIFICATION FORM AY 2013- 14 OF ANJU SHARMA; PHOTOCOPY OF PAN : AMLPS0048M OF ANJU SHARMA; CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S APG BUILDERS PVT. LTD. CERTIFYING THE LOAN CONFIRMATION OF RS. 10 LACS TO NARESH CHA NDRA BHAYANA, PROP. KATHURIA PORTFOLIOS; COPY OF COMPANY MASTER D ATA; COPY OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2011 AND 31.3.2013; COPY O F DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KANSAL NEROLAC PAINTS LTD. VS. DCIT (2014 49 TAXMAN.COM 208 (BOMBAY); ITA T, NEW DELHI DECISION DATED 05.01.2015 IN THE CASE OF SH. BALI RAM (DECEASED) VS. ITO PASSED IN ITA NO. 5206/DEL/2013 (AY 2007-08). I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRO DUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I ADMIT THE AFORESAID ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEEE, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DOCUMENTS, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE CASE LAWS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 03.02.2020. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:03-02-2020 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) ASST. REGISTRAR, 5. DR ITAT, NEW DELHI