DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi V. Ideatin Studio Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1638/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6329 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 133(6); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1638/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi Vs Ideation Studio Pvt. Ltd., P-6, Basement Green Park Extension, New Delhi-110016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCI6521R Assessee by : Sh. Arun Mishra, Adv. Revenue by : Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 17.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi dated 24.12.2018. 2. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.2.48 Cr. on account of expenses under heads,  Project expenses  Outstation expenses  Packing & Transportation expenses on the grounds that the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO to the parties as provided by the assessee have been received back undelivered. 3. The main plea taken up by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) was that the additions have been made merely because notices issued u/s 133(6) have been returned unserved or were ITA No. 1638/Del/2019 Ideation Studio Pvt. Ltd. 2 not complied with while ignoring plethora of evidences submitted to prove the genuineness of the transaction. 4. After examination of the entire details filed by the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition holding that the payments have been made through running accounts and all the vendors are identifiable their PAN numbers have been given and in many cases confirmed accounts of the ledger have been filed which have been ignored by the AO. Even, before us, the assessee has taken us through paper book wherein TDS returns have been filed. The ld. CIT(A) has also held that “ad eq u at e e vid enc es w er e f ile d b ef or e t h e A O t o s ub st a nt i at e t he exp ens es a nd it wa s u nfa ir a n d to ta lly u nca l led f or o n h is pa rt t o igno re t h e s am e pa rt ic ula rl y w he n it is n ot ic e d t hat no fu rt her e nq uiry or eff o rt s ha ve b ee n m ad e t o s up p ort t he a dv ers e c o nc l us i on d r aw n by hi m as dis a llow a nc e has be en m a d e on ly f or t he r ea s on t h at t he re w as no c om p l ia nc e o r s at is fac t ory co m p lia nc e of t he n ot ic es b y t he v end or u /s 13 3(6 ) ”. All the details of expenses on the payments have been part of the paper book which have been already filed before the revenue authorities. Hence, keeping in view, the entire facts before us, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19/10/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (C. M. Garg) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 19/10/2023 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR