M/s. Willard India Limited, Meerut V. DCIT, Bulandshahr

ITA 6848/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4255 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P S KASHYAP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-6848/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) WILLIARD INDIA LTD., C/O-KASHYAP & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 214, CITI CENTER, BEGUM BRIDGE ROAD, MEERUT. PAN-AAACW3212D ( APPELLANT) VS DCIT, CIRCLE, BULANDSHAHR. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SH. P.S.KASHYAP, FCA REVENUE BY SH.A NIL SHARMA, SR.DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2014 OF THE CIT(A), MEERUT PERTAI NING TO 2010-11 AY ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.AR ADDRESSED ONLY GROUND NO.1 SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS APPEARED INITIALLY BEFORE THE AO THEREAFTER COULD NOT APPEAR ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS THAT THERE WAS A DETERIORATION IN THE NET WORTH OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING T O REVIVE ITSELF BY GOING BEFORE BIFR ETC. AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CONSEQUENTLY PASS ED U/S 144. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ARBITRARINESS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WO ULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE TDS DEDUCTED WAS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND T HE EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF 26AS WAS ALSO ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS. THE ISSUE, IT WAS SUBMITTED CAME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS AVAILA BLE BEFORE THE AO WAS RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) AND WAS TREATED AS FRESH EVIDENCE AND TA KING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT SINCE THREE OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY THE AO, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT T HE ISSUES MAY BE REMANDED. DATE OF HEARING 07.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04 .11.2016 I.T .A .NO.-6848/DEL/2014 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. THE LD.SR.DR ON CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WAS UNABLE TO COMMENT WHETHER ANY FRESH EVIDENCE WAS FILED AS EVIDENTLY NO DISCUSSION ON WHAT EVIDENCE WAS CONSIDERED TO BE FRESH EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A) HAS B EEN DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER. CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE CIT(A), IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTO RED TO THE AO AS ADMITTEDLY FRESH EVIDENCE MAY BE REQUIRED TO DECIDE THE SAME. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND I FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ORDER PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CI T(A) EVIDENTLY HAD NOT BEEN DECIDED. IT IS FURTHER NOT CLEAR WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE CONSIDERE D AS FRESH EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(A). CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTUAL MATRIX AND THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, IT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT A SSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI