VSR Infratech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi V. ACIT Circle-26(2), New Delhi

ITA 3135/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1053 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASSESSEE HAD VISITED
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 234B; 139(1)

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3135/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15) VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd. A-22, Hill View Apartments Vasant Vihar New Delhi-110 057 PAN-AADCV 4234B Vs. ACIT, Circle 26(2) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent by Sh. Toufel Tahir, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 24.01.2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15. Grounds taken in this appeal of Assessee are as under: “Ground No.1: The Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -26(2), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. AO’) erred in law and in the facts & circumstances of the case by passing the assessment order dated ITA No.3135/Del/2019 VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Page 2 of 8 29.12.2016 under section 143(3) of the Act and assessing the appellant at income of Rs.1,56,80,642 and thereby raising the demand of Rs. 63,26,750. Ground No. 2 : a. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in contending the External Development Charges ('EDC') / Internal Development Charges ('IDC') charges as expense covered u/s 43B of the Act. b. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case by considering the payments made towards EDC/IDC charges only up to March 31, 2014 and disregarding the provisions of the first proviso to Section 43B of the Act which prescribe that all payments made up to the due date of filing of return as prescribed under Section 139(1) shall be considered. c. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making an addition of Rs. 1,30,62,662, on account of EDC/IDC charges paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority ('HUDA'), u/s 43B of the Act by claiming that payment of Rs. 6,11,32,754 has been made whereas actual payment made is Rs. 11,07,62,225. Ground No.3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act on the additions made in the assessment order. Ground No.4 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in imposing interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Acton the above additions made in the assessment order. ITA No.3135/Del/2019 VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Page 3 of 8 Ground No.5 The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or omit any of the above grounds of appeal as the circumstances may warrant.” (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the total income was determined at Rs.1,56,80,642/- as against returned income of Rs.22,04,480/-. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 24.01.2019. (C) On perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 24.01.2019; we find that certain portions of the order pages 1,5, and 6 are incomprehensible and unclear. The aforesaid pages of impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) are scanned and reproduced below for the ease of reference: ITA No.3135/Del/2019 VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Page 4 of 8 ITA No.3135/Del/2019 VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Page 5 of 8 ITA No.3135/Del/2019 VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Page 6 of 8 (C.1) Further, on perusal of the impugned appellate order, we find that the assessee’s appeal was decided ex-parte and the Ld. CIT(A) did not have the benefit of representation from the appellant’s side. (C.2) In the present appeal before us, Ground No.2 of appeal refers to the assessee’s contention that on the date of hearing the Authorized Representative (“AR” for short) for assessee had visited the office of the Ld. CIT(A) that Ld. CIT(A) was not available in the office. ITA No.3135/Del/2019 VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Page 7 of 8 (D) At the time of hearing before us, the appellant assessee was not represented. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side; we heard the Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (“DR” for short) for Revenue. He submitted that the issue in dispute regarding the addition of Rs.1,30,53,662/- as per the first ground of appeal in the present appeal before us may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing fresh order in accordance with law after providing the reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (E) In view of the foregoing, and as the Ld. Sr. DR for revenue is in agreement with this, we set aside the issue regarding the addition of Rs.1,40,53,662/- to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. We further direct the Ld. CIT(A) to ensure that all the parts of the order passed by him are clear and comprehensible. This appeal is disposed off in accordance with the aforesaid directions. ITA No.3135/Del/2019 VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT Page 8 of 8 (F) In the result, this appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Our order was already pronounced orally on 25.05.2022 in Open Court, in the presence of Sr. DR for Revenue, after conclusion of the hearing. This written order is now signed today on 26.05.2022. Sd/- Sd/-/-/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 26.05.2022 Pk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI