M/s. K. B. Aggarwal, HUF, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4206/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6929 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4206/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S K.B. AGGARWAL, HUF VS. ITO, WARD 55(5) D-24, VIVEK VIHAR, NEW DELHI DELHI 110 095 (PAN: AACHK6947C) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. SAMPATH, ADV. & SH. V. RAJA KUMAR, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. ANIL SHARMA, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.5.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-19, NEW DELHI RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWIN G ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO: 1. RS. 17,85,492/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 IGNORING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FURNISHED; 2. RS. 1,70,177/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN PROCESSING CHARGE S TREATING THE SAME AS NOT RELATED TO BUSINESS. 2 BOTH THE ABOVE ACTIONS BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, MISCONCEIVED AND UNJUST MUST BE QUASHED WITH DIRECT IONS FOR RELIEF. 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 STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAS N OT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A). HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRES H, AS PER LAW AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. H E HAS FILED THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 32 HAVING THE CO PY OF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENTS FILED BEFORE CIT(A) DATED 11.5. 2016; COPY OF ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENTS FILED B EFORE CIT(A) DATED 26.5.2016 ALONGWITH LONA SANCTION LETTER DATED 27.5 .2011, LOAN CLOSURE AND HANDING OVER OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS LETTER DATED 2.1.2014, COPY OF CONVEYANCE DEED OF PROPERTY AT D- 24, VIVEK VIHAR, DELHI, GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF SH. A MITABH AGGARWAL, COPY OF PAN CARD OF KB AGGARWAL, HUF, COPY OF COMPU TATION OF INCOME FOR AY 2011-12 OF KB AGGARWAL, HUF, COPY OF ACKNOWL EDGEMENT OF FILING OF VAT RETURN OF DRIVEWELL SERVICE STATION A ND COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES 1962 ALONGWITH CE RTIFICATE FROM M/S TATA CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. HE HAS ALSO GI VEN A CERTIFICATE THAT THE PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE COMPILATION W ERE ALL FILED AS INDICATED ABOVE I.E. LD. CIT(A). HENCE, HE REQUESTE D THAT THE ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK WERE NOT CONSI DERED, HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE REMITTE D BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER CONSI DERING ALL THE 3 DOCUMENTS AND ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 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 CONT AINING PAGES 1 TO 32 HAVING THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUM ENTS FILED BEFORE CIT(A) DATED 11.5.2016; COPY OF ADDITIONAL STATEMEN T OF FACTS AND ARGUMENTS FILED BEFORE CIT(A) DATED 26.5.2016 ALONG WITH LONA SANCTION LETTER DATED 27.5.2011, LOAN CLOSURE AND HANDING O VER OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS LETTER DATED 2.1.2014, COPY OF CONVEYANCE DEED OF PROPERTY AT D-24, VIVEK VIHAR, DELHI, GENERAL POWER OF ATTOR NEY IN FAVOUR OF SH. AMITABH AGGARWAL, COPY OF PAN CARD OF KB AGGARWAL, HUF, COPY OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR AY 2011-12 OF KB AGGARWAL , HUF, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING OF VAT RETURN OF DRIVEWEL L SERVICE STATION AND COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES 1962 ALONGWITH CERTIFICATE FROM M/S TATA CAPITAL FINANC IAL SERVICES LTD. IN MY VIEW, THE SAID DOCUMENTS NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO IN ORDER TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH . 6. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT AND FILE ALL THE NECESSARY PAPERS BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/01/2017 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 20/01/2017 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