ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Shilverglades Investment (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3567/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5571 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURABHI AHULWALIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO3567 /DEL/09 1/3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3567/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ACIT, M/S SHIVERGLADES INVESTMENT (P) CIRCLE-8(1), LTD., C-81/A, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO.AAACS9525-R APPELLANT BY : MS. SURABHI AHULWALIA, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI U.N. MARWAH. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: THIS IS REVENUE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI DATED 18.5.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER: - 1. LD CIT(A) ERRED, IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,00,000/- MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES. 2. LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN REDUCING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,76,806/- TO RS.31,683/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CONVEYANCE E XPENSES. . I.T.A. NO.3567/DEL/09 2/3 3. LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.22,42,137/- MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE PROFESSIONAL CHARGES. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD DR OF THE REVENUE THA T IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHE D NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS REG ARD, SHE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH THE FIRST ISSUE REGARDING ADDITION MADE BY HIM OF R S.50 LAKHS AND IT IS POINTED OUT THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER THAT NO DETAILS/EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE PRICE OR SALE PRICE HAVE BEEN F ILED FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING OTHER DISALLOWANCE S ALSO, SHE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHER EIN ALSO IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED EXPENSES ON TRAVELING AND CONVEYANCE AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES A ND SINCE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED W HOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE SAME ARE DISALLOWED. IT IS SUBMITTED BY HER THAT SINCE NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD CIT(A) HAS NOT OBTAINED RE MAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPE AL OF THE REVENUE SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION. 4. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE A SSESSEE THAT DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BEFORE L D CIT(A) ALSO, DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED ON BEING ASKED FOR BY THE LD CIT(A) AND NO FRESH EVIDENCE AS PER RULE 46A WAS FURNISHED BEFORE LD CI T(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING I S GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NECESSARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SPITE OF THIS CLEAR FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO . I.T.A. NO.3567/DEL/09 3/3 SUCH CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE LD CIT(A) THAT THIS OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT CORRECT. IN SPITE OF THIS, LD CIT(A) HAS DECIDED T HESE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DETAILS AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT OBTAINING ANY REMAND FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UNDER THESE FACTS, W E FEEL THAT ALL THESE THREE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US SHOULD GO BA CK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMIN ING THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY FURNISH BEFORE HIM. HENCE, W E SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON ALL THESE ISSUES WHICH ARE RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US AND RESTORE THESE MATTERS BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FURNISH NECESS ARY DETAILS AND EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER, THE AS SESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW ON THESE THREE ISSUES AF TER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE O F HEARING I.E. 4 TH MARCH, 2010. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 04.3.2010. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).