ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Mohender Kumar Garg, Delhi

ITA 2777/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0854 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA NEB
• Assessee Lawyers: RANO JAIN ADV MR S K DHAMIJA
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 39(4), ROOM NO. 1009, 10 TH FLOOR, E-2 BLOCK, DR. S.P. MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110002 VS SHRI MOHENDER KUMAR GARG, PROP. M/S MAHENDER FLOUR MILL, SMT. MITHILESH GARG, LEGAL HEIR, LATE SHRI MOHENDER KUMAR GARG, 25-A, PLOT NO. 33, SAMAY VIHAR APARTMENT, SECTOR 13, ROHINI, DELHI-110085 (PAN: AANPG9007E) APPELLANT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY: MS ASHIMA NEB, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : MS RANO JAIN, ADV. MR. S.K. DHAMIJA, CA DATE OF HEARING: 13.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.09.2018 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2014 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -13, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE (S INCE EXPIRED) WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND WAS DOING BUSINESS IN THE NAM E OF M/S MAHENDER FLOUR MILLS. FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 2 ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A TAXAB LE INCOME OF RS. 9,04,654/- AND DECLARED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 2. 88% AND NET PROFIT RATE OF 0.54%. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED 'THE A CT'). AS THE ASSESSEE COULD FILE ONLY DETAILS IN PART AND HAD AL SO FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF CLOSING STOCK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN SU CH NATURE OF TRADE, THE NORMAL PROFIT VARIED BETWEEN 5% TO 7% AN D HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS. 37,13,384/- BE ING 2% OF THE TURNOVER TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,94,521/- AND A FURTHER DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,80,2 65/- UNDER TRADE MARK, DISCOUNT AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. A FURTHER ADDITION WAS MADE OF RS. 5 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF CREDI T CARD EXPENSES AND RS. 20,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIR MED UNSECURED LOANS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT A N INCOME OF RS. 77,42,820/-. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) AND CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (A)DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF 2% OF GROSS P ROFIT AS WELL AS DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD EXPE NSES, ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 3 UNSECURED LOANS AND ALSO A PART OF THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCES AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,94,521/-. 2.1 NOW AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT IS BEFORE THE ITA T AND HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,13,384/- MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING RESULT @ 2% OF GROSS PROFIT. 2. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND LAW WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 5,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CREDIT CARD EXPENSE. 3. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,0,50,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNCONFIRMED UNSECURED LOANS. 4. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R.S 2,94,521/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES. 5. IN SPITE OF AMPLE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO THE ASSE SSEE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATED AND NEITHER PRODUCE D THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR ANY REMAND REPORT WAS SOUGHT BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ANY O F THE ISSUES. ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 4 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO LEAVE, TO ADD, ALTER OR AM END ANY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AS NO DETAILS HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSING OFFICER A NY OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE MADE BEFO RE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). THE LD. SR. DR VEH EMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES GROSSLY IGNORING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS. 4. IN RESPONSE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,13,384/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING R ESULT @2% OF GROSS PROFIT IS CONCERNED, THE GP RATE OF THE ASSES SEES BUSINESS HAS INCREASED OVER THE YEARS: IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10 IT WAS 2.72%; IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IT WAS 2.79% AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, IT INCREASED TO 2.88% . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL FALL IN GP RATE AND HAS ONLY INCREASED OVER THE YEARS, ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF LOW GP ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 5 RATE CANNOT BE MADE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE PRECEDING YEARS, ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS. 37,13,384/- ONLY ON THE GROUND OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF GROSS PROFIT IN COMPARISON TO OTH ER TRADERS IN THE SAME INDUSTRY, WITHOUT GIVING ANY SUCH SPECIFIC INSTANCE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEME NTS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND THAT NO DEFECTS IN THE SAID FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND AUDITORS REPORT HAVE BEEN POINTED O UT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE M ETHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BEING CONSIS TENTLY FOLLOWED IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE FINANC IAL STATEMENTS AS WELL AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR PRECEDING YEARS WE RE DULY ACCEPTED AND NO ADDITION DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN GP RA TE WAS MADE. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IS MERELY ON THE BA SIS OF GUESSWORK AND ESTIMATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.1 COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD EXPENSES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF CREDIT CARD EXPENSES. DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 6 LEDGER OF CITI BANK CREDIT CARD PAYABLE A/C AND A C OPY OF CREDIT CARD STATEMENT. HOWEVER, NO FURTHER DETAILS WERE C ALLED BY THE AO WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXPENSES OF CREDIT CARD AN D MOREOVER, NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED THEREBY, NOT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T ALL EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS ES OF BUSINESS ONLY. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT INFOR MATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AND NOT EVEN A SINGLE DISCREP ANCY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED BEFO RE HIM. IN VIEW OF ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTION RECORDED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND NOT GRANTING ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE CALLED FOR. 4.2 AS FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,50,000/- ON AC COUNT OF UNCONFIRMED UNSECURED LOANS IS CONCERNED, IT WAS SU BMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE AO IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF UNCONFIRMED UN SECURED LOANS. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS TO BE APPRECIATED T HAT THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 20,50,000/- ARE ARISING FROM THE EARLIER YEAR AND THAT NO TRANSACTION FOR UNSECURED LOANS HA S BEEN CARRIED OUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. TH US, WHEN NO UNSECURED LOANS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR, NO ADDITION ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 7 IN THIS REGARD IS CALLED FOR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE LOANS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES . HOWEVER, NO FURTHER QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD. ALSO, NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REG ARD BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAVING SUBMITTED THE COPY OF CONFIRMATIONS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES HAS DULY DISCHAR GED HIS ONUS OF SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF UNSECURED LOANS. 4.3 WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,94,521/- O N ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A RELIEF OF RS. 2,09,712/- OU T OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,94,521/-. THOUGH, IN THE DEPARTMENTS APPE AL, THEY HAVE RAISED THE GROUND FOR THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,94, 521/-, HOWEVER ONLY RS. 84,809/- WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY FURTHER APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND RELATES TO ONL Y AD HOC DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES OF SALARY AND LABOUR CHAR GES WHICH WERE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A). SHE SUBMITTED THA T IT IS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THE EXPENSES RELATING TO SALARY AN D LABOUR CHARGES CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ANY ELEMENT OF PERSO NAL NATURE. ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 8 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS FAR AS THE DELETIO N OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING RESULT IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT GP RATE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS 2.72%, 2.79% IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2010-11 AND 2.88% IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I. E. 2011-12. THUS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL F ALL IN THE GP RATE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN INCREASING CONTINUOUSLY. WE ALSO NOTE THAT NOTHING SPECIFIC HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE MAKING ADDITION OF EXTRA 2 % ON ACCOUNT OF GP RATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN AN Y REASONS FOR ENHANCING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE EXCEPT FOR MENTIONI NG THAT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS BEING CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE , THE NET PROFIT RATE WOULD VARY BETWEEN 5% AND 7%. ALTHOUGH THE INCOME TAX ACT DOES EMPOWER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPL ETE THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON BEST JUDGMENT, THE SAME IS NOT AN ARBITRARY POWER AND THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT SHOULD ALSO BE BASED ON SOME RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BEFORE HIM WHICH HAD NOT BEEN ADVERSELY QUALIFIED BY THE AUDITOR. FURTH ER, THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO BEI NG FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY SINCE PAST MANY ASSESSMENT YEARS AND F INANCIAL ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 9 RESULTS FOR THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE DUL Y ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NO ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN GP RATE WAS MADE. IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUM PTIONS AND GUESS WORK ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WIT HOUT BRINGING ANY COGENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE ASS UMPTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON T HIS ISSUE AND WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS REGARD. 5.1 COMING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD EXPENSES WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A), IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFI C DISCUSSION OR RECORDED ANY CATEGORICAL FINDING REGARDING THE C REDIT CARD EXPENSES. THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS C ORRECT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT EVEN A SINGLE DISCREPANCY IN THE DETAILS WHICH WERE FURNISHED BEF ORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE CREDIT CARD EXPENSES . THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY DEFECT HAVING BEEN POINTED OUT BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE BEEN LEGALLY MA DE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE ON THIS ISSUE ALSO A ND WE UPHOLD ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 10 THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5.2 COMING TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 20,50 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNCONFIRMED UNSECURED LOANS, IT HAS AGAI N BEEN OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEE N ADDED BACK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE AND THIS OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ALSO CORRECT . THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE BALANCE OF RS. 20,50,000/- PERTAINS TO UNSECURED LOANS WHICH WERE BROUGHT FORWARD FROM EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION/S OF RAISING FRESH UNSECURED LOANS DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS FACT IS ALSO VERIFIABLE FROM FORM 3CD WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE LD. SR. DR HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO N EGATE THIS FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, ON FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE ON THIS ISSUE ALSO AND WE UPHOL D THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY TH E DEPARTMENT. 5.3 THE LAST CHALLENGE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,94,521/- BEING AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF SALARY, LABOUR CHARGES, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AND STAFF WELFARE EXPENSE AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE AMOUNTS PERTAINING ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 11 TO SALARY AND LABOUR CHARGES BY HOLDING THAT THE EX PENSES ON SALARY AND LABOUR CHARGES CANNOT INVOLVE ANY ELEMEN T OF PERSONAL NATURE. THUS, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ONLY DELETED RS. 2,09,712/- OUT OF RS. 2,94,521/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 84, 809/- STANDS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A). HOWEVER, THE DEPARTM ENT HAS CHALLENGED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,94,521/- AS H AVING BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A) WHICH IS FACTUALLY INCOR RECT. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT NO PERS ONAL ELEMENT COULD BE INFERRED TO BE INVOLVED IN PAYMENT OF SALA RY AND LABOUR CHARGES. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPENSES REMAIN ED UNVERIFIABLE AND THAT THEY MAY CONTAIN AN ELEMENT O F PERSONAL NATURE. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD AND AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATI ONS OF THE LD. CIT (A) THAT LABOUR CHARGES AND SALARY EXPENSES WIL L NOT HAVE AN ELEMENT OF PERSONAL NATURE UNLESS A SPECIFIC FINDIN G HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO AND WE DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5.4 BEFORE PARTING, WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE T HAT THE LD. SR. DR HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. CIT (A) SHO ULD HAVE ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 12 CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DELETE THE DISALLOWANCES WHICH ARE UN DER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDE R SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS ENTIRELY ON THE FACTS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO FRESH EVIDENCE HAD BE EN ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. THEREF ORE, IT IS OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO CALL FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND WE OPINE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IS ENTIRE LY JUSTIFIED IN PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES BEFORE HIM ON T HE BASIS OF FACTS WHICH WERE BEFORE HIM AND WERE ALSO UNDISPUTE DLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. 6. IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMEN T STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 GS ITA NO. 2777/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 13 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT(A) 4) CIT 5) DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR