M/s. Addisplay Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3249/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4285 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3249/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 M/S ADDISPLAY EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD -1(2) 105, SECTOR-18, NEAR STATE BANK CR BUILDING, NEW DELHI ACADEMY, VILLAGE SIRHAUL, GURGAON HARYANA 122001 (PAN: AADCA3065F) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RS SINGHVI, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. ANIL SHARMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING ON : 05/10/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 07/10/20 16 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.3.2007 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, NEW DELHI RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1(I) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEPTING CLAIM OF STATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB EVEN THOUGH CLAIM IS IN CONFORMITY WITH PAST HISTORY. (II) THAT FINDING AND CONCLUSION OF CIT(A) IS WITHO UT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING 2 DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,34,628/- EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND FULLY SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING CLAIM RELATING TO PRINTING OF RAW MATERIAL AND MATERIAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,17,390/- EVEN THOUGH CLAIM IS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND FULLY SUPPORTED AND SUBSTANTIATED. 4. THAT THERE IS NO GROUND OR BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE OF CONSULTATION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 60,250/- AND ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE LAW. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATE D HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE HAS STATED THAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THEM. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE W HICH CAN BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, IF THIS BENCH GRANTED AN OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FILED THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 77 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N BEFORE THE CIT(A); COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2002-03; CA LCULATION FO 3 PROPORTIONATE BENEFIT U/S. 80IB; COMPUTATION OF IN COME FOR AY 2002- 03; AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2003; COPY OF LETTER BEFORE AO DATED 6.1.2006; COPY OF LETTER BEFORE AO DATED 24.1 .2006; COPY OF LETTER BEFORE AO DATED 24.2.2006; DETAILS OF COMMIS SION PAID WITH NAME AND ADDRESS, CONFIRMATION, COPY OF ITR ALONGWI TH BALANCE SHEET AND P&L A/C; COPY OF LETTER OF INTENT; COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE; COPY OF LEDGER OF RAPID SCAN (COMM.) A/C ALONGWITH TDS C ERTIFICATE; DETAILS OF PRINTING ON RAW MATERIALS ALONGWITH LEDGER, TDS CERTIFICATES AND BILLS AND DETAILS OF CONSULTANCY CHARGES ALONGWITH COPY OF ACCOUNTS, TDS CERTIFICATES, BILLS AND SALES INVOICES. HE REQU ESTED THAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO FOR FRESH CONSID ERATION. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COU NSEL. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS T HE PAPER BOOKS DETAILING THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES THOROUGH EXAMINAT ION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON, AS PER LAW, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE AND 4 ALSO PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/10/2016 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 07/10/2016 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