Mr. Vishal Singh yadav, New Delhi V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 3635/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4461 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K JIWANI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3635/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 VISHAL SINGH YADAV, VS. ITO, WARD-II(3), HOUSE NO. 830 HSIIDC BUILDING, K/3, HAIBATPURA, VANIJAYA NIKUNJ, SOM BAZAR, NAZAFGARH UDYOG VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110 043 GURGAON-122001 (PAN: ACMPY7911L) (HARYANA) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. GAUTAM JAIN, ADV. & SH. LALIT MOHAN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. V.K. JIWANI, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGN ED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)_, GURGAON RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R BY NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF COMMISSION GIVEN B Y APPELLANT TO LOCAL SHOP KEEPERS OR TO DIRECT CUSTOM ERS RANGING FROM 2.21 % TO 2.25% OF MRP (MAXIMUM RETAIL PRICE) OUT OF RECEIVED COMMISSION OF 3.2.1 % OF MRP FROM MOBILE COMPANY (VODAPHONE) WHICH INFECT 2 PASSON BY THE APPELLANT PER THE MARKET POLICY OF TH E BUSINESS. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF RS. 50,000/- CLAIMED TOWARDS LIC PREMIUM INSPITE OF TH E FACT THAT COPY OF THE SAME WAS GIVEN TO LD. CIT(A) DURING APPEAL PROCEEDING BUT HE HAS NOT TAKEN ON TH E RECORD ONLY DUE TO NON SUBMISSION OF REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R OF MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 8,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS DESPITE THE FACT THAT CONFIRMATIO NS OF CONCERNED PERSONS WERE GIVEN TO LD. CIT(A) DURIN G APPEAL PROCEEDING BUT HE HAS NOT TAKEN ON THE RECOR D ONLY DUE TO NON SUBMISSION OF REQUEST FOR ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 3 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS REITERATED THE CONTENTION RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND STATED THAT LD. CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALL OWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80C OF RS. 50,000/- CLAIMED TOWARDS LIC PREMIUM INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT COPY OF THE SAME W AS GIVEN TO LD. CIT(A) DURING APPEAL PROCEEDING BUT HE HAS NOT TAKEN ON THE RECORD ONLY DUE TO NON SUBMISSION OF REQUEST FOR AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) ALSO WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,80,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS DESPITE THE FACT THAT CONFIRMATIO NS OF CONCERNED PERSONS WERE GIVEN TO LD. CIT(A) DURING A PPEAL PROCEEDING BUT HE HAS NOT TAKEN ON THE RECORD ONLY DUE TO NON SUBMISSION OF REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFOR E HIM. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, HE REQUESTED TO SEND BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCES/ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND DECIDE THE ISSU ES IN DISPUTE 4 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM, BUT HE COULD NOT AVAIL THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY BE UPHELD AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A) AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCES SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS NOT TAKEN ON RECORD BY HIM ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL TO RENDER THE JUSTICE T O THE PARTIES AND NEEDS TO BE THOROUGHLY EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE EVIDENCE S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE ADMITTED AND ALL THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE STAND REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER EXA MINING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESEE THROUG H HIS COUNSEL 5 IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESS ARY ADJOURNMENT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12/03/2018. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 12/03/2018 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 6