ITO, WARD- 26(2), New Delhi V. Vavasi Telegence P. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 3980/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7913 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Set aside
• Section: 68; 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 3980/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3980/DEL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income-tax Officer, Ward-26(1), New Delhi. Vs M/s Vavasi Telegence Pvt. Ltd., E-81, Pashim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. PAN- AABCV5624K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 02.04.2024 Date of pronouncement 10.04.2024 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-32, New Delhi, dated 29.12.2017, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following revised grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,39,25,20,500/- on account of unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2 ITA no. 3980/Del/2018 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as per financial statements/records the said amount was kept in “General Reserve” and not under head “Share Application Money”. Hence, provisions of Section 56(2)(viiB) is clearly attracted as the amount of share premium was determined at the time of issue of shares i.e. in the previous year. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.77,53,467/- made u/s. 68 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.” 2. At the time of hearing no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that no one is attending the proceedings on behalf of the assessee since 12.04.2021. Notices sent at the address furnished by the assessee in Form no. 36 have been returned unserved with the postal remarks ‘Addressee left without instruction’. No change in address, if any, has also been furnished by the assessee. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided after hearing the learned DR and on the basis of material available on record. 3. Facts, in brief, are that for A.Y. 2014-15 the assessee filed its return of income on 29.03.2016 declaring loss of Rs. NIL. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for limited scrutiny. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) at a total income of Rs. 140,02,73,970/-, as against Nil income returned by the assessee, by making addition of Rs. 139,25,20,500/- on account of unexplained cash credits; and Rs. 3 ITA no. 3980/Del/2018 77,53,467/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal to the learned CIT(A), who allowed the appeal by deleting the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved against the deletion of additions the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. It is noticed that before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the counsel of the assessee had filed certain papers which were not placed on record before the Assessing Officer. The papers filed were - order of DRT; sealing the premises of the assessee; minute books of the assessee resolving issuance of equity shares; and the order of FIR filed by the E.O.W. against one Shri Kamal Jit Ahluwalia, who was one of the share-subscribers. Relying on the documents filed on behalf of the assessee learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4.1 From the perusal of the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)’s order, it is apparent that he has decided the matter without seeking any comments from the learned Assessing Officer vis-à-vis documents filed by the assessee before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 4.2. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that in order to provide substantial justice to both the parties, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the learned CIT (Appeals) to decide the matter de novo, in accordance with 4 ITA no. 3980/Del/2018 law, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after seeking comments from the Assessing Officer in respect of documentary evidence filed by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee. We order accordingly. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 10 th April, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI