M/s Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Ltd., Noida V. ITO, Noida

ITA 6272/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3474 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVIKANT GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Assessment record
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6272/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S GREEN VALLEY INFRACITY PVT. LTD., VS. ITO, WA RD-1(4), J-134, SECTOR-41, NEW DELHI NOIDA-201301 NEAR PRAYAG HOSPITAL. (PAN: AAFCP8389P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. M.P. RASTOGI, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. RAVI KANT GUPTA, SR. DR ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPU GNED ORDER DATED 27.09.2016 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, NOIDA PERT AINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS VOID ABINITIO AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT AFFORDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR COMPLIANCE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME BY RS. 33,29,52,203/- BY CIT(A) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME BY A SUM OF RS. 4,94,001/- AS NEGATIVE RESERVES AND SURPLUS IS WRONG. 4. THE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM BORROWINGS AGGREGATING TO RS. 12,75,50,000/- IS WRONG AND IS OPPOSED TO THE MANDATE OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 5. THE OBSERVATION OF CIT(A) THERE BEING NO EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME OR THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BEFORE THE AO BEING UNSATISFACTORY IS OPPOSED TO EVIDENCES ON RECORD AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,75,50,000/- MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 6. THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO LAND OWNED BY IT AND, THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT HAVE SOLD ANY PLOT / LAND IS OPPOSED TO EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 7. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THE APPELLANT ALSO DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN WORKING PROGRESS OF RS. 20,49,08,002/- IS OPPOSED TO EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 3 8. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS. 20,49,08,002/-. 9. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISCOVERING NEW SOURCES OF INCOME AND THE ORDER OF ENHANCEMENT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 10. THAT THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE E XPARTE ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE IN TOTALITY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOK C ONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 518 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND OTHER RELEVA NT EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIA TING HIS CLAIM, THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED RECORD S, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT PRO PERLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. I FURTHER NOTE THA T ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR S UBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM IN DISPUTE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, BU T THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME. BEFORE ME, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 518 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND COMPUTA TION; BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT; LETTER DATED 23. 1.2015 FILED BEFORE AO GIVING DETAILS OF WIP AND SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE S FOR UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 12.75 CRORES ALONGWITH CONFIRMATION AND BANK STATEMENT GREENFIELD ESTATE; LETTER DATED 13.2.2015 FILED BEF ORE AO GIVING BREAK UP OF WIP AND TITLE DEED OF LAND OF THE PRO JECT UNDER WORK IN PROGRESS; LETTER DATED 20.2.2015 FILED BEFORE AO SU BMITTED ALL THE LEDGERS AND VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO WORK IN PROGRES S; LETTER DATED 26.2.2015 FILED BEFORE AO SUBMITTED LOCATION MAP, B ROUCHER AND APPROVED MAP OF THE PROJECT; LETTER DATED 20.3.2015 FILED BEFORE AO SUBMITTED COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED OF GREENFIELD ES TATE LENDER OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 12.75 CRORES OF LOAN; LETTER DATED 25.3.2015 FILED BEFORE AO INFORMING THE AO THAT M/S GREENFIEL D ESTATE HAS SENT CONFIRMATION THROUGH SPEED POST AFTER WHICH AO COMP LETED THE ASSESSMENT; ORDER SHEET OF AO EVIDENCING THAT THE A O HAD RAISED QUERIES FOR LOAN OF RS. 12.75 CRORES AND WORK IN PR OGRESS AND EXAMINED AND VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED; NO TICE OF ENHANCEMENT DATED 16.5.2015 ISSUED BY CIT(A); REPL Y OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 26.5.2016 INFORMING THE CIT(A) ABOUT INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF DIRECT TAX DIS PUTE RESOLUTION SCHEME 2016; SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE DATED 20.6.201 6 REITERATING 5 INTENTION TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF DIRECTOR TAX DISP UTE RESOLUTION SCHEME 2016; COPY OF ORDER SHEET MAINTAINED BY THE CIT(A) EVIDENCING THAT BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE OF ENHANCEME NT DATED 16.5.2016 ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE CALLED FOR AND SE EN AND DIRECT TAX DISPUTE RESOLUTION SCHEME 2016. I ALSO NOTE TH AT THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CERTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE EVIDENCES/ DOCUMENTS WERE ON RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) & AO, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME IN A PROPER MAN NER, WHICH IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, ARE VERY ESSENTIAL TO BE CO NSIDERED AND NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFRESH, AFTER CONSIDERING AL L THE EVIDENCES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM. THE ASSE SSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO SUBMIT ALL THE DOCUMENTS / EVIDENCES BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH TH E LD. CIT(A) IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF THE MAT TER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31-05-2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31-05-2018 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT 6 NEW DELHI.