Project Portfolio Management LLP (Previously known as Project Portfolio Management (P) Ltd.), New Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi

ITA 2293/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4055 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH FRIDAY-A NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE - PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2293/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PROJECT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LLP, VS. INCOME-TAX O FFICER, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS PROJECT PORTFOLIO WARD 20(2), NEW DELHI. MANAGEMENT (P) LTD.), 31, FIRST FLOOR, SUNDER NAGAR MARKET, NEW DELHI. PAN : AASFP3945M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SAURAV ROHATGI, A.R. RESPONDENT BY: MS. RAKHI VIMAL, CIT/DR DATE OF HEARING: 14.02.2020 DATE OF ORDER : 20.02.2020 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 IN APPEAL NO.10023/21/CIT(A)-7/DEL/2017-18 PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-7, NEW DELHI (LD. CIT(A)) FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, M/S. PROJECT PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, LLP (A SSESSEE) PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 01.10.2013, DECL ARING AN INCOME OF RS.45,340/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ORDER DATED 3 1.03.2016 PASSED U/S. 2 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (THE ACT) DETERMINED INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.26,63,95,340/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.16,15 ,50,000/- IN RESPECT OF SALE OF INVESTMENT AND RS.10,48,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED FROM UNITED EQUITY PVT. LTD., HOLDING THOS E TO BE BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDING TO LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, T HIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF MONEY LAUNDERING USING THE FICTITIOUS COMPANIES WIT H INVESTMENTS AS TOOLS. 3. AGGRIEVED BY SAID ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERR ED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT AS MANY AS 15 ADJ OURNMENTS WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL , BUT IN SPITE OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL THEM AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OPTION FOR HIM, BUT TO PROCEED EX PARTE . OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS THAT INASMUCH AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FROM THE SIDE OF T HE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE FINDINGS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE FINDING REACHED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WERE TO BE CONFIRMED. CIT(A), THE REFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 4. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT CIT(A) FAILED TO AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE AND ON THE INSTRUCTION OF THE CIT(A), ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS PRESENTED AT THE DAK COUNTER ON 28.01.2019 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS WAITING TO KNOW THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING, BUT THE ORDER WAS PASSED BEHIND TH E BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT REFER TO ANY OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AND THERE WAS NO SPEC IFIC FINDING THAT THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER JUS TIFIES THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, OR AS TO NEED OF THE CIT(A) TO LOOK FOR ANY FURTHER AND FRESH MATERIAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTAN CES, IT IS PRAYED THAT 3 GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY, ASSESSEE IS READY TO COOPERAT E WITH THE CIT(A) TO GET THE MATTER DISPOSED OF ON MERIT AND HAVING REGA RD TO THE HUGE QUANTUM OF ADDITIONS, IT IS JUST AND PROPER TO GRAN T AN OPPORTUNITY. WE HEARD THE LD. DR ALSO, WHO SUBMITS THAT MORE THAN S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY LD. C IT(A), WHICH THE THEY FAILED TO AVAIL. 5. ON THE FACE OF THE FINDING OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.16,15,50,000/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BOG US SALES OF INVESTMENT AND ALSO THE ADDITION OF RS.10,48,00,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED FROM UNITED EQUITY PVT. LTD. , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR THE CI T(A) TO LOOK INTO THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND THE MATERIAL BASED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO REACH A CONCLUSION FOR SUCH ADDITION. 6. LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AND DEPENDENT UPON THE SUFFICIENCY OR OTHERWISE OF SUCH MATERIAL, HE SHOULD HAVE FELT THE NEED OF ANY NEW EVIDENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMA ND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR DISPOSAL AFRESH BY WAY OF SP EAKING ORDER AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SET FORTH THEIR C ASE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROCEED W ITH THE HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING WITHOUT SEEKING ANY ADJOURNMENT AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS FREE TO DEAL WITH THE REQUEST OF ADJOURNMENT, IF ANY, AS PER HIS DISCRETION, BUT ONL Y REQUIREMENT IS AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY AND DISPOSAL BY WAY OF A D ETAILED SPEAKING ORDER. 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20/02/2020 AKS