Aditya Antibiotics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2430/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9273 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VED PRAKASH MISHRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI A BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2430/DEL/2017 [ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13] ADITYA ANTIBIOTICS PVT. LTD VS. THE I.T.O B 5, MADHUBAN WARD 1(3) NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN: AADCA 6593 L [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.01.2020 ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI VED PRAKASH MISHRA, SR. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] - 1, NEW DELHI DATED 17.03.2017 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. WE DECIDED TO PROCEED EXPARTE. 3. THE LD. DR WAS HEARD AT LENGTH. CASE RECORDS CA REFULLY PERUSED. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT D URING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THOUGH SOME INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN MA DE IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GI VE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILE D NECESSARY EVIDENCES/CONFIRMATIONS OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A LIST OF ADVANCES RECEIVED BACK. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO CONFIRMATIONS OR LEDGER AC COUNTS OF THESE PARTIES. TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. 3 5. ON RECEIVING NO PLAUSIBLE REPLY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE CONFIRMED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THESE COMPANIES. 6. IN ITS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT WAS NO T AWARE OF THE PRESENT ADDRESS OF THE COMPANIES AND IT IS NOT IN CONTACT WITH THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANIES. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE CONVINCING AND, ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1.18 CRORES. 8. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 9. THE ASSESSEE FILED SOME DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF ADVANCES RECEIVED BACK FROM SEVERAL PARTIES. COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS WERE ALSO FILED WHICH WERE DISMISSED BY THE AUTHORITIES STATING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES W ERE PROVIDED TO THE 4 APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, TH EREFORE, THE SO CALLED CONFIRMATIONS CANNOT BE ADMITTED AT THIS STA GE. 10. THE LD. CIT(A), DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE OBSERV ATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. 11. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DR AT LENGTH, WE FIND THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID FILE CERTAI N DOCUMENTS ON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN HIS REMAND REPORT, STATED THAT SINCE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS AND HE CHOSE NOT TO REPLY/COMPLY, THEREFORE, THESE DOCUMEN TS SHOULD NOT BE ADMITTED AT THIS STAGE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE QUERIES DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT HE DID FILE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES A T THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THOSE DOCUMENTS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 12. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE DE EM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF ADVANCE 5 MONEY RECEIVED BACK ALONGWITH CONFIRMATIONS AND SUP PORTING BANK DOCUMENTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IN ITA NO. 2430/DEL/2017 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.01 .2020. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 09 TH JANUARY, 2020. VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT ASST. REGISTRAR 4. CIT(A) ITAT, NEW DELHI 5. DR 6 DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P S/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER