Spangle Steel Products, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle- 36(1), New Delhi

ITA 3086/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7343 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: G P AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3086/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SPANGLE STEEL PRODUCTS, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 36(1), A-4/1(I-1), NEW DELHI UPPER GROUND FLOOR, USHA KIRAN BUILDING, AZADPUR, DELHI 110 033 (PAN: ABIFS7696D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. G.P. AGGARWAL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 09.11.2017 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A), NEW DELHI IS NOT ONLY BAD IN LAW BUT ALSO AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE PARTICULARLY KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THE LEARNED AO MADE ADDITIONS PRIMARILY DUE TO HUF STATUS OF THE COMMISSION RECIPIENTS WHICH CAUSE HAS NOT BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 2 ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION AND CONSULTANCY CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1750330/- AND RS. 220600/- RESPECTIVELY IN VIEW OF:- A. THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DULY FILED VARIOUS DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS CONFIRMING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS TO THE APPELLANT. B. THAT THE CASE LAWS QUOTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER APPEAL. C. DELHI HIGH COURT VERDICT IN CIT V/S PRINTER HOUSE PVT. LTD. (188 TAXMEN 70 (DEL)) PARTICULARLY KEEPING IN VIEW THAT NO NEGATIVE EVIDENCE HAS FOUND BY THE LEARNED AO ON INVESTIGATION DONE BY HIM UNDER SECTION 133(4) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. D. DELHI HIGH COURT VERDICT IN CIT V/S SIDDARTHA TRADE LINKS PVT. LTD. (ITA 1249/2011) PARTICULARLY KEEPING IN VIEW THE VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AND COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. E. ITAT DELHI VERDICT IN VINITEC ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. V/S DEPTT OF INCOME TAX (ITA 2835/DEL/2011) KEEPING IN VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO NEGATIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND THE RELATED COMMISSION AGREEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46AOF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR THE LEAVE TO ADD, SUBSTITUTE, MODIFY OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND THE RELATED COMMISSION AG REEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A, WHICH ARE VERY ESSENTIAL IN CONSIDERING THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AND THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AND ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDI CATION, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT HAVE NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION ON THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCES AND THE APPLICATION U/R 46A FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE APPLICATION DATED 7.11.2017 FILED UN DER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES FILED BEFORE ME ENCLOSING THER EWITH THE COPY OF COMMISSION AGREEMENTS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSE E AND THE COMMISSION AGENTS, VIDE ANNEXURE 1, 2 & 3 AND THE C OPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE COMMISSION AGENTS TO WHOM T HE IMPUGNED COMMISSION WAS PAID, VIDE ANNEXURE 4, 5, 6, & 7, W HICH WERE ADDITIONAL / FRESH EVIDENCE, AS THE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIV EN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBMISSION OF THE SAID EVIDENCES BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITIONS. I 4 FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL / FRESH EVIDENCE, AS AFORESAID, DUE TO REASON MENTIONED AS ABOVE. I FURTHER NOTE THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FURNISHED BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE S HAPE OF APPLICATION U/R 46A, WHICH ARE VERY MUCH RELEVANT AND ESSENTIAL IN ADJUDICATING THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE, I ADMIT THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FIL E OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME, AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15-01-2019. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :15-01-2019 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.