Smt. Asha Chawla, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3220/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4109 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 3 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3220 /DEL/201 5 AY: 20 10 - 11 SMT. ASHA CHAWLA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 39(1) XIII/4836, BARA TOOTI NEW DELHI SADAR BAZAR NEW DELHI 110 006 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : NONE . ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(APPEALS) - XX, NEW DELHI DATED 23.2.2015 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2010 - 11. 2. NO PERSON IS PRESENT IN THE COURT ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF ALL THE CASES WHICH ARE ON BOARD TODAY ON THE GROUND THAT SR.D.R. IS NOT AVAILABLE . I AM INFORMED THAT, FOR THE ENTIRE WEEK, THE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS IN ALL THE CASES POSTED BEFORE THIS SMC BENCH ON THE SAME GROUND. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE BENCH CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO COLLAPSE, I REJECT SOME OF THESE APPLICATIONS FILED BY TH E REVENUE FOR ADJOURNMENTS AND DISPOSE OF THE CASE EX PARTE QUA THE REVENUE ON MERITS. 3. HEARD SHRI SOMIL AGGARWAL, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. THERE ARE IN ALL 5 GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED GROUND NO.2 ONLY WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS. 2 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,02,500/ - FULLY AS MADE BY AO U/S 40(A) (IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) ON THE GROUND TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED ON PAYMENT OF LEGAL EXPENSES AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,75,000/ - . 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE I HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE MADE IN VIEW OF THE D ECISION OF HON BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING 357 ITR 642 (ALL) AND THE DECISION OF THE VIZAG SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT VS. ACIT (2012) 16 ITR (TRIBUNAL)/ 146 TTJ 1 (SB) (VIZAG) AS THERE IS NO AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS AUDIT FEE AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2010. 6. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PA RT. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2016. SD/ - (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 10 TH AUGUST, 2016 MANGA 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR