Mainland Estate (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

ITA 4085/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2913 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S ANANT
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4085/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 MAINLAND ESTATE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), C/O RN MARWAH & CO. LLP NEW DELHI CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 4/80, JANPATH, NEW DELHI 110 001 (PAN: AABCM2352D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. U.N MARWAH, CA REVENUE BY : SH. B.S. ANANT, SR. DR ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 27.2.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-15, NEW DELHI PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.) THAT ON FACT AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,69,740/- MADE BY THE AO BEING MINIMUM BUSINESS EXPENSES INCURRED UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF ACCOUNT TO MAINTAIN THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WILL RESULT IN DOUBLE DEDUCTION, AS APPELLANT HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED STANDARD DEDUCTION U/S. 24(A) OF THE ACT. 2.) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN NOT FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE 2 PREDECESSOR CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FOR THE AY 2011-12 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, WHEREIN RELIEF WAS ALLOWED ON SIMILAR ADDITIONS ON IDENTICAL FACTS. 3.) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE, FORGO, ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT EXACTLY SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE R EVENUE AUTHORITY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WHICH HAS BEEN LATER AL LOWED IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS IMPUGN ED ORDER DATED 4.12.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NO T FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. HE ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY (SUPRA). HE ALSO DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY FILING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PROPERTY CONSIDERED THE SAME AND WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED OBJECTI ON TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE I N DISPUTE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT PAGE NO. 6 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT 3 SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALSO RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 W HEREIN, THE AO HAD ALSO DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE INCURR ED TO MAINTAIN THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A)-19, HAD PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL VIDE PARA NO. 4.2 AT PAGE NO. 9 HAS GIVE N HIS FINDING WHICH IS NOT SATISFACTORY. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME, IN VIEW OF THE FINDING RECORDED BY HIS PREDEC ESSOR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.12.2015 AND DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ACCORDINGLY, AFTER GIVING ADE QUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05-11-2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 05-11-2018 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.