M/s. Unison Hotels Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3420/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2167 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.AS. NO.3420/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 M/S. UNISON HOTELS LTD., VASANT KUNJ, PHASE-II, NELSON MANDELA ROAD, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO, WARD-18(1), NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AAACU0455C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VINOD KUMAR BINDAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SURENDER PAL, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 30 08 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 08 2018 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.03.2015, PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XVII, NEW DELH I FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- (I) ADDITION OF RS.1,20,74,284/- ON ACCOUNT OF OUTSTANDING CREDIT BALANCES. (II) ADDITION OF RS.47,695/- FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN CREDI T BALANCE. (III) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,65,964/- U/S.14A. I.T.A. NO.3420/DEL/2015 2 (IV) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,33,311/- CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER EXPENSES. (V) ADDITION OF RS.24,30,004/- 2. THE OTHER MAIN GROUND WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN BY TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DECIDING THE APPEAL EX PARTE DUE TO NON APPEARANCE. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THOUGH ON VARIOUS DATES, ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BUT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING NOTICE SENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT (A) COULD NOT BE SERVED, AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PUT UP THE APPEALS. MOREOVER, AS SESSEE HAS A PRIMA FACIE GOOD CASE AND ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) FOR DECIDING A FRESH IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTI ON IF THE MATTER IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A). 5. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS AND LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX PARTE BY THE LD. CIT (A), THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) TO BE DECIDED A FRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE A ND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSEE SHALL ENSURE THAT HE WILL MAKE DUE COMPLIANCE ON THE DATE S GIVEN. I.T.A. NO.3420/DEL/2015 3 6. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST AUGUST, 2018 PKK: