Bhupendra Kumar, Bijnor V. ITO, , Bijnor

ITA 440/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4969 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VINJAY JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 440/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 BHUPENDRA KUMAR, VS. ITO, BIJNOR C/O DAYAWATI HOSPITAL, O/O CIT(A), KALAGARH ROAD, CIVIL LINES, DHAMPUR-246761 AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DISTT. BIJNOR MORADABAD UTTAR PRADESH U.P. - 244001 (PAN: AWWPM3839K) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :SH. VINJAY JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : SH. AMRIT LAL, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 11.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), MORADABAD RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ADDITION OF RS. 4130000/- (I.E. INCOME STATED DURING THE SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE I.T. DEPARTMENT) IS PURELY UNJUSTI FIED BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THAT WAS JUST ESTIMATION TO I NVEST IN BUILDING TILL THE YEAR 2013-14 AND NOT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ONLY. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDING, IT WAS ADMI TTED THAT THE COST OF BUILDING ARRIVED AT RS. 5130000/-, (4130000 + 1000000 LOAN FROM BANK) BUT N HOW IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE TH IS BUILDING IN THE YEAR 2013-14. THIS BUILDING WAS IN THE YEAR 2008 AND THEREAFTER S OME OF THE ADDITIONS MAKE TO FURNISH AND DEVELOP THE HOSPITAL BUILDING. WE HAVE GIVEN ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES TO AO, DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOSPITAL BUILDING AND PRODUCED THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT OF M/S DAYAWATI MEDICOSE, DHAMPUR AS WELL AS MR. BHUPENDRA KUMAR, 2 TO ARRIVE AT THE COST OF HOSPITAL AS ON 31.3.2013 A ND 31.3.2014, BY WAY OF SUBMITTING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUP PORT OF OUR CLAIM ALONGWITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES, BUT NOBODY FO LLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF OUR ALONGWITH SUFFICIENT EV IDENCES, BUT NOBODY COMMENTED UPON:- A) BALANCE SHEET AND P&L A/C AS ON 31.3.2009. B) BALANCE SHEET AND P&L A/C AS ON 31.3.2010. C) BALANCE SHEET AND P&L A/C AS ON 31.3.2011. D) BALANCE SHEET AND P&L A/C AS ON 31.3.2012. E) BALANCE SHEET AND P&L A/C AS ON 31.3.2013. F) BALANCE SHEET AND P&L A/C AS ON 31.3.2014. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A), WHICH HAVE NOT BE EN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THEM AND PASSED THEIR ORDERS WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CASE. HE ALSO DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 27 TO 44 OF THE APB I N WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT FROM 31.3.2009 TO 31.3.2014, WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED/VERIFIE D BY THE AO. HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE S ET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AFTER GIVING ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. DR HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THE REQU EST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS ATTA CHED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A), WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THEM A ND PASSED THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS. I FURTHER FIND COGENCY IN ASSES SEES COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS THAT PAGE NO. 27 TO 44 OF THE APB IN WH ICH ASSESSEE HAS 3 ATTACHED THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT FROM 31.3.2009 TO 31.3.2014, NEEDS TO BE PROPERLY EXAMINED/VERIFIED BY THE AO, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXAMINED/APPRECIATED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, AFTER GI VING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO EXAMINE ALL THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED THROUGH HIS COUNSEL TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT T AKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT WITH THE LIBERTY TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE B EFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07/11/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 07/11/2019 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES