SSMP Industry Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

ITA 4471/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1913 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: Y P RAWLA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.4471/DEL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) SSMP INDUSTRY LTD., K-336, SARITA VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110 076 PAN NO. AALCS2212E (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD 24(2), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI Y.P. RAWLA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2017 OF THE LD. CIT(A), NEW DELHI RELEV ANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW, WRONG ON FA CTS AND ABSOLUTELY BASED ON SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECT URES. 2. THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WAS SERVED ON 1 ST OCTOBER, 2013. 3. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OR INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS C ONTRARY TO LAW OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION AN D HAS ACTED ARBITRARILY; THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CI T(A) AS PER HIS EX PARTY ORDER. I. ARBITRARILY DISALLOWANCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 3,00,000 /- AS REGISTERED OFFICE RENT VIDE PREMISE NO. K-336, S ARITA VIHAR, DELHI-110073. DATE OF HEARING 19/11/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/11/2018 ITA NOS. 4471/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 SSMP INDUSTRY LTD. 2 II. ARBITRARILY DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,80,000/- AS SALA RY PAYMENT TO V.P. ADMINISTRATION, IGNORING THE FACTS O F EMPLOYEE. III. ARBITRARILY DISALLOWANCE OF NON-RECOVERABLE AMOUNT AGAINST DUES OUTSTANDING AND THE OUTCOME OF OUTSTANDING ARE UNDER SETTLEMENT WITH THE PARTY. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, DELETE, AND MODIFY/AME ND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING AND SUBJ ECT TO THE PRAYER BEFORE THE HONBLE MEMBER. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE N OT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF AO MERELY ON SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WAS SERVED ON 1 .10.2013. IT WAS THE FURTHER CONTENTION THAT AO HAS REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION AND HAS ACT ED ARBITRARILY AND THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS EXPARTE ORDER DATED 4.1.2017. HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL THE EVIDENCES/ DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE, IF THE BENCH HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECID E THE SAME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD. ITA NOS. 4471/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 SSMP INDUSTRY LTD. 3 4. LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE REQUES T OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND WAS SERVED ON 1.10.2013. I FURTHER NOTE THAT AO HAS REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION AND LD. CIT(A) HAS PASS ED THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 04.01.2017 AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL THE EVIDENCES/ DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HEARING ON 08.01.2019 AT 10.000 AM WITH THE DIRECTI ONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AND VERIFY EAC H AND EVERY PAPER/DOCUMENT, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH H IS COUNSEL IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON 08.01.2019 AT 10.00 AM AND FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS C ASE AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. SINCE THE ORDER HAS B EEN ITA NOS. 4471/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 SSMP INDUSTRY LTD. 4 PRONOUNCED, THERE IS NO NEED TO SEND THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19.11 .2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/11/2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI