C.H.L. (South) Hotels Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4075/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7488 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURABH GOEL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4075/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 C.H.L. (SOUTH) HOTELS LTD. HOTEL CROWN PLAZA SURYA, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI. PAN: AACCC6152E VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. SAURABH GOEL, C.A. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. JAIN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.08.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 12.03.2015 IN RELATION TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSE AMOUNTING TO RS. 9 ,05,461. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSIN G THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE TENDERED EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR DE DUCTION, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED ON PAGE 2 OF THE A.O. WI THOUT GIVING ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, THE A.O. MADE DISALLO WANCE, WHICH CAME TO BE AFFIRMED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. THE LD. A.R. CONTENDED, AND IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION RIGHTLY SO, THAT THE A.O. OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN REASONS FOR REJECTING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF MAKING THE AN ADDITION BY WA Y OF A NON- REASONED ORDER. I THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNE D ORDER ON THIS SCORE AND REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A.O. FOR PASSING A REASONED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AFTER MEETING WITH THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. SECOND GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,36,199/ -. THE A.O. FOLLOWED MORE OR LESS THE SAME COURSE OF ACTIO N, AS WE HAVE REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE. FOLLOWING THE SAME V IEW, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL AND DIRECT A.O. TO GIVE REASONS FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE, IF WAR RANTED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.08. 2016. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 3 RD AUGUST, 2016. SELF COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. **