Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 3925/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6513 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3925/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, VS. ITO, WARD-2(3), 406, 1 ST FLOOR, NITIKHAND-II, GHAZIABAD INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD (PAN: APXPG6476N) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. R.C. RAI, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2016 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A), GHAZIABAD RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) GHAZIABAD UP, GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES REL ATED TO QUALITY CUT AND RATE DIFFERENCE AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,76,296/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) GHAZIABAD UP, GROSSLY ERRED IN CAPRICIOUSLY REJECTING THE VITAL AND LEGAL LY TENABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TENDERED AND CONTENTI ON RAISED DURING THE ASSESSMENT / PROCEEDINGS / APPELL ATE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ DELETE/ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2 THESE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) GHAZIABAD UP, AND AO BEI NG ARBITRARY, UNJUST, ILLEGAL AND INVALID IN LAW LIABL E TO BE QUASHED AND IT IS PRAYED TO YOUR HONOUR THAT THEY PLEASE BE QUASHED AND / OR ANY OTHER RELIEF JUST D EEM FIT AND PROPER PLEASE BE DIRECTED. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 32 CONTA INING THE (I) COPY OF DEBIT NOTE AND LEDGER ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF: M/S G OURI SHANKAR TRADING CO; TEK CHAND RAKESH KUMAR; M/S SUBHASH CH ANDER & BROS.; M/S SHREE SHYAM EXPORT; M/S ISHWAR CHAND & S ONS; M/S DEVINDER KUMAR DIPESH KUMAR; M/S KHUSHI AGRO INDIA AND (II) COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF: ASHUTOSH SARSAI JULANA (DELHI ); MALDHA SHAH & SARKAR BUSINESS PRODUCTS (P) LTD. MALDA AND NANK KI SHORE & BROTHERS (MP). HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRO NGLY REJECTING THE VITAL AND LEGALLY TENABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TEN DERED AND CONTENTION RAISED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND ARE VERY ESSENTIAL TO ADJUDI CATE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE REQUESTED THAT T HE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW, AFTER CONSIDE RING ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 3 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. . 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE PAPER BOOK CONTA INING PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 32 CONTAINING THE (I) COPY OF DEBIT NOTE AND LEDGER ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF: M/S GOURI SHANKAR TR ADING CO; TEK CHAND RAKESH KUMAR; M/S SUBHASH CHANDER & BROS.; M /S SHREE SHYAM EXPORT; M/S ISHWAR CHAND & SONS; M/S DEVINDER KUMAR DIPESH KUMAR; M/S KHUSHI AGRO INDIA AND (II) COPY O F LEDGER ACCOUNT OF: ASHUTOSH SARSAI JULANA (DELHI); MALDHA SHAH & S ARKAR BUSINESS PRODUCTS (P) LTD. MALDA AND NANK KISHORE & BROTHERS (MP). IT WAS ALSO THE CONTENTION DURING THE HEARING BEFORE ME THAT LD . CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY REJECTING THE VITAL AND LEGALLY TENABLE DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCES TENDERED AND CONTENTION RAISED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND ARE VERY E SSENTIAL TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. IN VIEW OF THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED V IEW THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE A RE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH, AS PER LAW. 4 ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE IN DIS PUTE AFRESH AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO CONSIDER ALL THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. TH E ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO SUBMIT ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH T HE LD. CIT(A) DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/03/2017 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 09/03/2017 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