M/s. Piyush Buildwell India Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 2735/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6354 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V R SONBHADRA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K MISHRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 133A; 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2735/DEL/2015 A.Y. 2007-08 M/S PIYUSH BUILDWELL INDIA LTD., VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, A-16.B-1,MOHAN CO-OP., INDUSTRIAL FARIDABAD. ESTATE, MAIN MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI. PAN: AADCP 7767 M ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.K. MISHRA FCA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.R. SONBHADRA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 28-02-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 15-03-2016. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:- THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDE R DATED 31.03.2015 IN APPEAL NO. 101/57/IT(LDH)/CIT(A)(C)/GGN/2009-10, RE LATING TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZ URE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE CORPORATE/ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE PREMISES NO. A -16/B-1, MOHAN COOPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MAIN MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI OF PIYUSH GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 16.01.2008. SURVEY U/S 133A WAS ALSO CONDUCTED I N THE PREMISES OF SOME OF THE 2 ASSESSEE IN THE GROUP SIMULTANEOUSLY. THE RESIDENTI AL PREMIES OF DIRECTORS OF PIYUSH GROUP WERE ALSO SEARCHED ON 16.01.2008. IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 2,39,946/-. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,93,972/- IN RESPECT OF TH E EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF B UILDING, OBSERVING THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY BUILDING DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT FURNISHED DETAILS OF PURCHASES OF FIXED A SSETS INCLUDING BUILDING DURING THE YEAR, THE EXPENSES DID NOT APPEAR TO BE GENUINE . 3. LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US AND HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREBY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,93,972/ - AS DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND M AINTENANCE. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT CO NSIDERING THE DETAILS OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES IN THE SHAPE OF LEDGER COPIES AS FILED BEFORE HER AND NOT ADMITTING THE SAME FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE. 3. THAT ALL SUCH LEDGER COPIES WERE \PART OF THE AU DITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HER DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MUKTA METAL W ORKS, 336 3 ITR 555 (P&H) AND IN THE CASE OF SH. TEK RAM VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 357 ITR 133 (SC). 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAVE ERRED NOT APPRECIA TING THE FACTS THE ADDITION OF RS.3, 93, 972/ - WAS MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT OBSERVING PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEAR D OR DISPOSED OFF. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED IN PARA 5.1 AS UND ER: 'COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,93,972/-, IT IS SE- EN THAT THE SAID-AMOUNT DEBITED IN THE P /L ACCOUNT UNDER REPAI R MAINTENANCE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER DETAILS AND JUSTIFICATION. BEFORE ME, ASSESS EE CONTENDED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE ON VARIOUS COUNTS VIZ. OFFIC E MAINTENANCE, HOUSE-KEEPING ETC WHICH HAD BEEN INADV ERTENTLY CLUBBED UNDER ONE COMMON HEAD OF REPAIR AND MAINTEN ANCE (BUILDING). THIS ERROR WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE AUDITO R WHO PREPARED THE BALANCE-SHEET CONSOLIDATING VARIOUS EX PENSE HEADS. HOWEVER, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORD ER THAT THE AO HAD CATEGORICALLY ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IN THE BACKDROP OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARING A NY BUILDING AS ITS ASSET IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THEN NO DETAI LS OF FIXED ASSETS INCLUDING BUILDING WERE FILED DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING. 6. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS IT IS EVIDENT THAT T HE MAIN CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS ERROR IN CONSIDERING THE HEAD OF EXP ENSES AND, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT THE MATTER IS RESTO RED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR 4 DECIDING THE ISSUE DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDE R ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15-03-2016. SD/- SD/- (KULDIP SINGH) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15-03-2016. MP: C OPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR