S S Kothari Mehta & Co., New Delhi V. Jt. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2963/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7429 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 28-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G N GUPTA I T P
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. N O. 2963 /DEL/201 3 A.Y. : 2009-10 M/S S.S. KOTHARI MEHTA & CO., 146-149, TRIBHUVAN COMPLEX, ISHWAR NAGAR, NEW DELHI (PAN: - AABFS6730L) VS. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-37, BLOCK-D, VIKAS BHAVAN, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. GN GUPTA, ITP DEPARTMENT BY : SH RI RAKESH KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 DATE OF HEARING : 2 DATE OF HEARING : 2 DATE OF HEARING : 28 88 8- -- -8 88 8- -- -2014 2014 2014 2014 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 28 2828 28- -- -8 88 8- -- -2014 2014 2014 2014 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU : : : : J JJ JM MM M THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XXV II, NEW DELHI DATED 01.3.2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2013 2 4,00,000/- AS AN UNREASONABLE PROFESSIONAL FEE PAD TO MS. RITU SEKSARIA, WIFE OF A PARTNER. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADJUDICATING GROUN D OF APPEAL NO. 3 RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BY APPLYING THE FACTS OF GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BEFORE HIM. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING GRO UND OF APPEAL NO. 4 RAISED BEFORE HIM. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 88,785/- INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF LIC OF PARTNERS AS BEING EXPENSES OF PERSONAL NATURE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING A SUM OF RS. 1,41,287/- INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF LIC OF PARTNERS/STAFF/FAMILY AS BEING EXPENSES OF PERSONAL NATURE. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACT S OF THE CASE IN HOLDING A SUM OF RS. 2,25,000/- BEING EXPENSES INCURRED ON TRAINING OF A PARTNER AS AN EXPENDITURE OF PERSONAL NATURE. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CHARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961 SEPARATELY. ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2013 3 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, DELETE OR ADD ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE FACTS NARRATED ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PAR TIES, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND MAINLY STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO P RINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT ORDER MA Y BE CANCELLED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED BY DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C IT(A). LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE THREE PAPER BOOKS CONTAINING THE COPIES OF THE VARIOUS JUDGMENTS AND REVENUE RE CORDS ETC. THE COPIES OF JUDGMENT CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF TH E ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK ARE AS UNDER:- - LAXMI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES VS. ITO (298 ITR 20 3 (RAJ.) - CIT VS. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (TRAVEL) P LTD. (310 ITR 306 BOM.) - VITHAL OVERSEAS VS. CIT (334 ITR 229 (P&H) - ITO VS. THAKUR VAIDYANATH AIYER & CO. (7 ITD (BOM ) 9) - BIST AND SONS VS. CIT (116 ITR 13) ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2013 4 - CIT VS. STEEL INGOTS PVT LTD. (220 ITR 552) - ACIT VS. RAJNATH SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. (274 ITR 465) - CIT VS. KHODIDAS MOTIRAM PANCHAL (161 ITR 99) - MEATTLES LTD. VS. CIT (68 ITR 79) - M. SUBRAMANIAM BROS. VS. CIT (250 ITR 769) - CIT VS. HINDUSTAN HOSIERY INDUSTRIES) 209 ITR 383 - CIT VS. KOHINOOR PAPER PRODUCTS (226 ITR 220) - CIT VS. ROYAL CALCUTTA TURF CLUB (TC 16 R. 355) - HINDUSTAN ALUMINUM CORPN. LTD. V CIT (159 ITR 673 ) CAL. 5. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AN D PAPER BOOKS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON GOING THROUGH THE AFORESA ID DOCUMENTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT LD. CIT(A) W HILE UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PROPER REASONING ON THE ISSUES, WHICH REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONTRARY IN THE EYES OF LAW. HENCE, IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE SENDING BACK ALL THE AFORESAID ISSUES TO THE FILE O F THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH, IN LIGHT OF THE ITA NO. 2963/DEL/2013 5 SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCE MENTS AS STATED ABOVE BY THE ASSESSEE AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER THE REON, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/8/2014, UPON CONCLUSION OF HEARING. SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - SD/ SD/ SD/ SD/- -- - [ [[ [S.V. S.V. S.V. S.V. MEHROTRA MEHROTRA MEHROTRA MEHROTRA] ]] ] [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT . 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES