IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPURBENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 196/RPR/2016 (ASST. YEAR : 2010 - 11) M/S. SSVM CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., WARD NO.11, MILAN CHOWK, JASHPUR NAGAR (CG) VS. JCIT - 1, BILASPUR (CG). PAN NO. AAJCS 4940 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.R. RAO, ADVOCATE. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 02/08/2021. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/1 0 /2021. O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2016 IMPUGNED HEREIN PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) [FOR SHORT, LD. COMMISSIONER], BILASPUR U/SEC. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'ACT') FOR THE A.Y. 2010 - 11. 2 ITA NO. 196/RPR/2016 (M/S. SSVM CONSTR UCTION PVT. LTD.) 2. THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO.1 CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 5,96,560/ - WHI CH WAS MADE BY THE AO U/SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE IN HAND RELATES TO NON - DEDUCTION OF TDS BY THE ASSESSEE, MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECISION AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 VS ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD { ITA 160/2015 DECIDED ON 26 AUGUST, 2015}. 4. THE LD. DR RAISED NO OBJECTION. 5. CONSIDERING THE PECULI AR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE IN HAND IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FACTUAL DETERMINATION AFRESH AS TO WHETHER THE PAYEE (RECIPIENT) HAS PAID THE RELEVANT TAXES ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,96,560/ - MADE BY THE AO U/SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, A ND TO DECIDE AFRESH THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, IF ANY, AS PER THE DICTUM OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 VS ANSAL LAND MARK TOWNSHIP (P) LTD .(SUPRA). CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.1 STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. WE MAY CLARIFY THAT ONUS WOULD BE ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE EITHER SIDE, HOWEVER, THE AO WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PAYEE (RECIPIENT) FOR JUST DECISION OF THE CASE. 3 ITA NO. 196/RPR/2016 (M/S. SSVM CONSTR UCTION PVT. LTD.) 4. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RELATES TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER. ADMITTEDLY, NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER WHILE INVOKING ITS POWER OF ENHANCEMENT U/SEC. 251(1)(A) OF TH E ACT, WHICH CLEARLY AMOUNTS TO DENIAL OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. AS THE LD. COMMISSIONER HAS FAILED TO ADHERE TO THE MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF LAW AND, THEREFORE, ISSUES ARE REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER FOR DECISIO N AFRESH, SUFFICE TO SAY WHILE AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER SECTION 251(2) OF THE ACT. HENCE ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON DATED 11 - 1 0 - 2021 AS PER RULE 34(4) OF IT (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES. S D/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER V R/ - COPY TO: 1. T HE ASSESSEE - M/S. SSVM CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., WARD NO.11, MILAN CHOWK, JASHPUR NAGAR (CG) 2. T HE REVEN UE JCIT - 1, BILASPUR (CG). 3. LD. CI T ( A) , B IL ASP UR. 4. CI T , BIL SAP UR . 5. T HE D .R ., RA IP UR . 6. GUA RD F ILE . BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAIPUR (ON TOUR).