M/s. Universal Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2837/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6920 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN VASUDEVA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2837/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S UNIVERSAL BOOK VS. ITO, WARD 18(1), DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI 5, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, ROOM NO. 247, CR BLDG. , NEW DELHI 110 002 NEW DELHI - 110002 (PAN: AAACU0004B) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SACHIN VASUDEVA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. ANIL SHARMA, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.6.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-9 NEW DELHI RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. (A) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINI NG THE DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,30,602/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER O N THE ALLEGED CONTENTION THAT NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON BY THE APPELLANT SINCE ONLY ONE PURCHASE AND ONE SALE TRAN SACTION FORMED PART OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. 2 (B) THAT IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONCURRING WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION OF RS. 36,00,000/- PAID TO THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAD BEEN PAID WITH THE INTENTION TO REDUCE THE INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY WHICH THE APPELLANT EARNED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (C) THAT IN ANY CASE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE, NO LOSS TO REVENUE IS CAUSED AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR HAS PAID TAX AT THE SAME RATE AT WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS TAXABLE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF COPY OF THE BALANCE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM ITS CUSTOMER I.E ., SHRI MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY, RAJASTHAN AND COPY O F INCOME-TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. ANSHUL CHAWLA ALONGWITH COPY OF FORM 1 6 & INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT, PRODUCE D BY THE APPELLANT UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1 962. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AN DL OR ALTER THE GROUNDS AT A LATER STAGE. 3 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT ACCEPTIN G THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF COPY OF THE BALANCE CONFIRMATI ON RECEIVED FROM ITS CUSTOMER I.E. SHRI MOHAN LAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY, R AJASTHAN AND COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE MA NAGING DIRECTOR MR. ANSHUL CHAWLA ALONGWITH COPY OF FORM 16 & INTIM ATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT, PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. HE STATED THAT THESE DO CUMENTS /ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUPPORTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE WHICH HAS WRONGLY BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE SA ME ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT AP PEAL MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LA W, AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSURED THE BENCH THAT ASSESSEE WILL PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES ON THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND WILL COOPERATE WITH THE AO. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW. 4 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REI TERATED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND STATED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF COPY OF THE BALANCE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM ITS CUSTOMER I.E. SHRI M OHAN LAL SUKHADIA UNIVERSITY, RAJASTHAN AND COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. ANSHUL CHAWLA ALONGWITH COPY OF FORM 16 & INTIMATION UNDER SECTIO N 143(1) OF THE ACT, PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE A SSESSEES COUNSEL THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUPPORTS TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS WRONGLY BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, THESE DOCUMENTS ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL FOR SUBSTA NTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL FOR RENDERING THE JUSTICE T O THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I ADMIT THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OR DER AND REMIT BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH TH E DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQU ATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCES. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS 5 BEFORE THE AO FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSA RY ADJOURNMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/01/2017 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 20/01/2017 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES