Globus Infocom Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2429/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3711 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 80IC; 80IC

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2429/DEL/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL ME MBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUN TANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2429/DEL/20 17 (A.Y 2010-11) (THROUGH VIDEO CON FERENCING) GLOBUS INFOCOM LTD. C-1/2, SAFDARJUNG DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEW DELHI AABCG3985C (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-12(1) C. R. BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 11/3/2015 PASSED BY CIT (A)-15, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ID CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE, IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 50,94,073/- MADE BY ID ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DIVERSION OF INTEREST BEARING FU NDS TO STAFF FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE. 2. THAT ID CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN MAKING THE ALLEGATION ON THE APPELLANT COMPANY THAT APPELLANT IS PLAYING MISCHIEF IN APPELLANT BY SH. PRADEEP GUPA, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. VIVEK VARDHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 06.10.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.10.2021 2 ITA NO. 2429/DEL/2017 STATING THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN AY 2009-10 WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE ORDER SERVED UP ON THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND ID CIT(A) SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO DELETE SUCH ALLEGATION. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1, ID CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN L AW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN NOT ENHANCING THE DEDU CTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IC OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOW ANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 50,94,0731- AND ADDITION TO THE TOTAL BUSINESS INCOME OF THE A PPELLANT COMPANY AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC . 3. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUF ACTURING AND TRADING OF AUDIO VIDEO PRODUCTS. RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF R S. 94,56,550/- WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 14/10/2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AFTER MAKING ADDI TIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERGENT OF INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR RS. 50,94,0 73/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES DISALLOWED IN PREVIOUS YEAR AG AINST RS. 60,97,720/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE I DENTICAL TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER . AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3, THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL/WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROU ND NO.1. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN TH E PRESENT CASE TO THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND NO DISTINGUISHING FACTS WERE POINTED OUT BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THUS, GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE IDENTICAL I N PRESENT A.Y. 2010-11 AND, 3 ITA NO. 2429/DEL/2017 THEREFORE, WE ARE REMANDING BACK THE SAID ISSUES AS HELD IN 2009-10 BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING B Y FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THUS, GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND IS PREMATURE AT THIS STAGE, HENCE DISMISSED. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021 SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCH ITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 12/10/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI