Sun Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1828/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0743 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.1828 /DEL/10 1/4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1828/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 SUN INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., DCIT, 12-JINDAL CENTRE, CIRCLE-9 (1), BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. V. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.P. SINGH, DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A)- XII, NEW DELHI DATED 29.1.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 1-02. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GRO UND NO.1 & 9 ARE GENERAL AND THERE IS ONLY ONE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GR OUND NO.2 TO 5 AS PER WHICH, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING D ISALLOWANCE OF `.63,61,821/- OUT OF INTEREST PAYMENT AND `.4,46,487 /- OUT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES U/S 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE INVOKED RULE 8D AND HAS FOLLOWED THE DECI SION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE O F DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. AS REPORTED IN 26 SOT (SB) 603 BUT NOW, AS PER THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RE NDERED IN THE . I.T.A. NO.1828/DEL/10 2/4 CASE OF GODREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. AS REPORTED I N 194 TAXMAN 203, IT WAS HELD THAT RULE 8D IS PROSPECTIVE AND HENCE, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE L EGAL POSITION AT THE TIME OF FRESH DECISION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW REGARDING THIS ISSUE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT AS PER THIS J UDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GO DREJ BOYCE MFG. CO. PVT. LTD., (SUPRA), RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE THIS RULE WAS INSERTED AFTERWARDS AND AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THIS RULE IS PROSPECTIVE AN D NOT RETROSPECTIVE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THIS JUDG MENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GODREJ BOY CE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA). IF ANY JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IS AVAILABLE BY THIS TIME THEN OBVIOUSLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FOLLOW THAT JUDGMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE GROUND NO.6, 7 & 8 WHI CH ARE AS UNDER:- 6. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF ` .7,47,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INTEREST INCOME ON DEBENTURES. . I.T.A. NO.1828/DEL/10 3/4 7. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF `. 19,76,655/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INTEREST INCOME ON ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. 8. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS. 6. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A R EQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) TO ADMIT CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 REGARD ING ALL ISSUES AND THIS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) RE GARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 62-65 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT ON PAGE NO.3 OF HIS ORDER, LD CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH DISALLOWANCE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT BUT NO ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY HIM REGARDING ADMISSION OR NON ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THESE TWO ISSUES WHICH ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO.6 & 7. HENCE, IT WAS HIS REQUEST THAT T HESE TWO ISSUES SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AS PER TH E REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DATED 3.1.2005 AS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 62-65 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSE E HAD REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S WITH REGARD TO THESE TWO ISSUES ALSO WHICH ARE RAISED BEFORE US BY WAY O F GROUND NO.6 & 7 AND THE SAME WERE RAISED BEFORE LD CIT(A) AS PER G ROUND NO.8 & 9 BUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, NO DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY LD CIT(A) REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONNECT ION WITH THESE TWO ISSUES. HENCE, THIS ISSUE HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE O F LD CIT(A) FOR . I.T.A. NO.1828/DEL/10 4/4 FRESH DECISION ON THIS ASPECT I.E. REGARDING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE MAIN ISSUE AS PER GROUND NO.6 & 7 ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AFTER DECIDING THI S ISSUE I.E. ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THESE TWO ISSUES AND RESTORE BACK THE MATTE R TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION. LD CIT(A) SHOULD FIRST DECIDE THE REQ UEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN CONNECT ION WITH THESE TWO ISSUES WHICH ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AS PER GROUND NO.8 & 9 AND THEREAFTER, HE SHOULD DECIDE AFRESH THE MERIT OF THESE TWO ISSUES ALSO. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE O F HEARING I.E. 3 RD JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (A.K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT.03.1.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).