M/s. High Time Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1445/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3394 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI KANT GUPTA SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE HONBLE PRESIDENT, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1445/DEL./2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S. HIGH TIME MARKETING PVT. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 1 2 (4), 71/5465, REGHAR PURA, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 005. (PAN : AABCH6124N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAVI KANT GUPTA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.02.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 19.02.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, M/S. HIGH TIME MARKETING PVT. LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OR DER DATED 25.02.2016 PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS)-27, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA T HAT :- ITA NO.1445/DEL./2016 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN: 1. PRECIPITATELY PASSING ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE AC T WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE, ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING; 2. CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER: A. IN A SUM OF RS.3,69,30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO M/S V & K SOFTECH LTD. ON PROTECTIVE BASIS; B. IN A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF SDT CUTTING EDGE TECHNOLOGI ES LTD. TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. C. IN A SUM OF RS.3,43,300/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962.. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,69,30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO M/S. V& K SOFTECH LTD. ON PROTECTIVE BASIS; MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF SDT CUTTING E DGE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT; AND FURTHER MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,43,300/- U/S 14A OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) AND ASSESSED TH E TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,97,61,693/-. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX-PAR TE, HOWEVER ON ITA NO.1445/DEL./2016 3 THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) GOES TO PROVE THAT PRESENCE OF ONE SHRI DINESH GUPT A, CA IS RECORDED BEING REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOW EVER, IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT SIX NOT ICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SPEED POST, BUT HAS NOT BEE N SPECIFICALLY RECORDED IF ANY OF THE SAID NOTICES WERE SERVED UPO N THE ASSESSEE OR RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. ON THE ONE HAND, THE LD. C IT (A) HAS RECORDED THE PRESENCE OF SHRI DINESH GUPTA, CA ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE OTHER HAND, SHOWN THE ASSESSEE BEING NOT SERVED AND PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX-PARTE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. BUT AGAIN, MERITS OF THE CASE HAVE NOT BEEN TOUC HED UPON TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A ). SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS IS A MISCARRIAGE OF J USTICE AND LD. CIT (A) BEING QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO D ECIDE THE APPEAL ITA NO.1445/DEL./2016 4 ON MERITS EVEN IF NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE. SO, IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT NECESSARY TO RE MAND THE CASE BACK TO THE LD. CIT (A) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROV IDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQ UENTLY, THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (KULDIP SINGH) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-27, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.