Precision Bearing House, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

ITA 5320/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5483 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• 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. 5320/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 PRECISION BEARING HOUSE, VS. ITO, WARD 46(3), C-353, DEFENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 34 (PAN: AAAFP9164C) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. R.S. AHUJA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.5.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-16, NEW DELHI R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE N OT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT AO I N HIS ORDER HAS NOTED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT IS REFUNDABLE THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN TRADING ACCOUNT RATHER SH OWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND NOT CONSIDERED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE 2 ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HA S SIMPLY UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO BY STATING THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE HAS BEEN FILED FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSE E AND PASSED A NON- SPEAKING ORDER, HOWEVER, THE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED B EFORE HIM, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY HIM. HENCE, HE REQUESTED TO REMIT BACK THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATIO N, AS NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS FOR SUBSTANTI ATING ITS CLAIM. 4. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS. I FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAG ES 1-21 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE CLARIFICATION ON REFUND OF 4% S PECIAL ADDITIONAL DUTY VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 16/2008 CUSTOMS; PROCEDUR E TO BE ADOPTED FOR REFUND OF 4% SPECIAL ADDITIONAL DUTY VIDE CIRCU LAR NO. 6/2008- CUSTOMS; NOTIFICATION FOR CLAIMING REFUND OF 4% SPE CIAL ADDITIONAL DUTY DATED 14.9.2017; REPLY FILED BEFORE CIT(A) DAT ED 24.5.2018; DETAILS OF IMPORT PURCHASES ALONGWITH LEDGER ACCOUN T FILED BEFORE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; COPY OF BILL OF ENTR IES AND OTHER DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE AO AND COPY OF SAMPLE TAX INVOICE SHOWING SAD CHARGED FROM CUSTOMERS, WHICH WAS NOT DISCUSSED /CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE S. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO T O DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER CONSIDERIN G ALL THE 3 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS AFO RESAID AND GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FULL Y COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESS ARY ADJOURNMENT AND FILE ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05/02/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 05/02/2019 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