Lalit Kumar, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

ITA 4810/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4730 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Business expenditure; 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.-4810/DEL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) LALIT KUMAR C/O PRATAP VIKRAM & ASSOCIATES, CAS, 212-213, RAJENDRA JAINA TOWER-1, WAZIRPUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, DELHI 52 (PAN: AAYPG9291M) (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD 39(4), NEW DELHI ROOM NO. 1009, E-2 BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI 2 ( RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. MANOJ KUMAR, A.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-13, NEW DELHI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND APPRECIATING THE CORRECT FACTS OF THE CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF FORFEITURE OF BANK GUARANTEE BY DTC AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 2) APPELLANT COMPANY HAS EVERY RIGHT TO MAKE, ADD, DELETE, MODIFY OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2 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 CONVENIENCE. 3. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT LD. CIT( A) HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO PRESE NT HIS CASE; PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED FROM APPEARING BECAUSE OF THE REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND NOT OBJECTED THE REQUEST OF T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROPERLY DISCUSSING IN D ETAIL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5.1 IN THIS REGARD, I DRAW SUPPORT FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE M/S SAHARA INDIA (FARMS) VS. CIT & ANR. IN [2008] 300 ITR 403 WHEREIN IT HAS HELD THAT EVEN AN ADMIN ISTRATIVE ORDER HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURA L JUSTICE. 6. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, AS AFORESAID, I REMIT 3 BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILES OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO CONSIDER EACH AND EVERY ASPECTS OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL AND DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER BY CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS. NEEDLESS TO ADD THAT THE ASS ESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE ALL THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS ETC. BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSA RY ADJOURNMENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15/05/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15/05/2019 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 4