M/s. Multimax Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Meerut V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2231/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4511 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2231/DEL./2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2012-13 MULTIMAX ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD. C/O. SH. VINOD KUMAR GOEL 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES MEERUT PAN-AAFCM0243B VS. DCIT CIRCLE-17(1) NEW DELHI [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY : SH.V.K.GOEL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 21 08 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28 09 2017 O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2017 OF CIT(A)-6, NEW DELHI PERT AINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS INCLUDING GROUND NO. 3 WHICH READ A S UNDER : AS POINTED OUT ON THE FACE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , NO QUERY- CLARIFICATION WAS EVER SOUGHT BY THE LEARNED A.O. ABOUT THE SAID INTEREST PAYMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER RECORDS. 2. THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN WRONGLY MADE NOT ONLY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BUT EVEN THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED WAS INCORRECT. THIS ISSUE IT WAS SUBMITTED HAS BEEN AR GUED BEFORE THE CIT(A). FOR READY REFERENCE, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HERE AS UNDER :- THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON T HE FACTS OF THE CASE BY ADDING- DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 2,03,593/- AS EXCESSIVE IN TEREST ON UNSECURED LOANS BEYOND 7.5% AND LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 3. LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT NO POINT OF TIME ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN T HE FACTS QUA THE ISSUE. HAD A QUESTION BEEN ASKED THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN IN A POSITI ON TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BECAUSE EVEN ON MERITS THE ADDITION WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE CO NSIDERING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A. BUI LDERS 288 ITR 1 (SC). ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED ON MERITS O R THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, IN THE ALTERNATE BE SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT( A) OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIRST CONSIDER THE FACTS. ITA 2231/DEL/2017 PAGE 2 OF 2 4. THE LD. SR. D APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVE NUE CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, REMAND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OBJECT ED TO. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE TH E IMPUGNED ORDER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. I T IS HOPED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED, IS NOT ABUSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS UTIL ISED FULLY AND FAIRLY BY MAKING A PROPER REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE EVENTUALIT Y OF ABUSE OF THE SAME, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS AN ORDE R ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPT., 2017) SD/ - (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28.09.2017 *BINITA(DELHI)POONAM(CHD)* COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGIST RAR