Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8394 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
16-07-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
17-01-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.270 /DEL./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S. DBG LEASING AND HOUSING LTD., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 7 (2), C 88, GALI NO.8, JYOTI COLONY, NEW DELHI. SHAHDARA, NEW DELHI 110 032. (PAN : AAACD0473F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHISH GOEL, CA REVENUE BY : MS. NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.07.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 16.07.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, M/S. DBG LEASING AND HOUSING LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.12.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )- 3, NEW DELHI [BRIEFLY ''THE CIT(A)'] HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ASSESSMENT AT TOTAL INCOME OF ITA NO.270/DEL./2017 2 RS.14,65,22,872/- AS AGAINST RETURNED LOSS OF RS.2,48,25,061/-. THE APPELLANT DENIES ITS LIABILIT Y TO BE ASSESSED AT THE INCOME OF RS.14,65,22,872/-. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISPOSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14.11.2016 BUT THE APPELLANT DID NOT ATTEND THE HEARING ON 14.11.2016. THE CIT(A) DID N OT APPRECIATE THAT 14.11.2016 WAS A NATIONAL HOLIDAY A ND THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT WAS CLOSED. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,46,60,000/- BEING THE LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES TO M/S JAIDEEP ISPAT AND ALLOYS PVT. LTD. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE LOSS WAS DUE T O DISTRESS SALE OF SHARES. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,55,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT, TREATING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS BOGUS. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.52,217/- UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE ACT. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,11,35,616/- BEING NOTIONAL INTERES T ON AVERAGE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE OF RS.9,27,96,800/-. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FR AMED ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( FOR SHORT THE ACT) AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14,65,22,872/- AS AGAINST DECLARED LOSS OF RS.2,48,25,061/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2,46,60,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO.270/DEL./2017 3 DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. AO A LSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.13,55,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY THROUGH PAPER COMPANIES. AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.52,217/- U/S 14A AND ADDITION OF RS. 1,11,35,616/- ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL INTEREST CHARGEABLE ON THE SAID AVERAGE LOAN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE @ 12%. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PR OSECUTION. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. BARE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) GOES TO PROVE THAT DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASS ESSEE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED FOR W ANT OF NON- PROSECUTION. NO DOUBT, NOTICES WERE REPORTEDLY SEN T TO THE ASSESSEE ON NUMBER OF TIMES AND FINAL NOTICE WAS SENT ON 18.10. 2016 AND ON 02.11.2016, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNE D TO 14.11.2016 ON WHICH DATE NONE WAS APPEARED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE A PPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ITA NO.270/DEL./2017 4 6. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSUMING THE ASSESSEE ON FAULT BY NOT PURSUING HIS APPEAL BY PUTTING IN APPEARANCE BUT, IN THAT EVENTUALITY, THE LD. CIT (A) IS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS. TAKING HOLISTIC VIEW, THE CONTROVERSY AT H AND IS REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED ONCE FOR ALL AND TO STOP THE MULTIPLICITY O F THE LITIGATION, PRESENT APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE LD. C IT (A) TO DECIDE AFRESH ON MERITS AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, IF SO AVAILED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APP EAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 16 TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-3, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.
