Vidya Education Investments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi

ITA 8261/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Vidya Education Investments Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi, concerning several disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under various sections of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15. The disallowances included substantial amounts related to the valuation of land and buildings, interest expenditure, and rental income against furniture and assets. The Tribunal noted the Assessee's non-cooperative behavior during the appeal proceedings, which included seeking adjournments without substantive participation. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to remand the case for a fresh decision to ensure justice, highlighting the importance of proper documentation and evidence in resolving the disputes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 116375 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 8261/Del/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vidya Education Investments Pvt. Ltd., 5C, Old Friends Colony(West) Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. PAN: AABCV9413E VersuS DCIT, Circle 26(2), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ved Jain, Ld. Adv. Sh. Aman Garg, Ld. CA Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Arora, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 14.12.2022 Date of order : 28.12.2022 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.10.2018, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi (in short “Ld. Commissioner”), u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2014-15. ITA No. 8261/Del/2018 2 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer by passing the assessment order dated 16.12.2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act, made the following additions/disallowances: (i). Disallowance u/s 56(2)(viib) :Rs.4,44,07,939/- (ii). Disallowance of ALV of building :Rs.92,03,353/- (iii). Disallowance of Interest expenditure :Rs.77,48,510/- (iv). Disallowance of Rental income against Furniture and assets :Rs.92,18,395/- 3. The Assessee being aggrieved against the said disallowances, preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order affirmed the said disallowances/additions. ITA No. 8261/Del/2018 3 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. In support of its case qua addition/disallowance u/s. 55(2)(viib) of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 4,44,07,939/-, the Assessee claimed that the Assessee had purchased a land, i.e. 36.36 acres at Lonewala on a original consideration of Rs.2,58,15,153/- and school building was constructed on the said land at a cost of Rs.47,89,41,899/- in the year ended on 31.03.2010. The market value of the said land was estimated at Rs.3540/- per sqm as on 31.03.2013, meaning thereby, the total cost of the said land as on 31.03.2013 was Rs.51,48,57,600/-. Therefore, considering the value of the property, the value of equity share of Rs.10/- at a premium of Rs.90/- per share was fully justified. 5. We observe from the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner that in spite of availing various opportunities, the Assessee, except seeking adjournments neither joined the appeal proceedings nor filed any submissions/documents/ evidence before the Ld. Commissioner, consequently, in the absence of submissions/documents/evidence, the ld. ITA No. 8261/Del/2018 4 Commissioner decided the appeal in accordance with law. Conduct of the Assessee prima facie seems to be non- cooperative and irresponsible and therefore, does not deserve any leniency, however, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as in the absence of proper submission/evidence the Ld. Commissioner was prevented from deciding the issue in just and proper manner, and for ends of justice, we are inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. As we have remanded this case, thus at this stage, not dwelling into the merits of the case, including the contentions referred to above, raised by the Assessee. 6. We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to appear before the ld. Commissioner, if required and/or to file relevant documents which would be needed for real adjudication of the controversy. In case of further default or latches by the Assessee, the Assessee would not be entitled for any leniency and the ld. Commissioner would be at liberty to pass the order in accordance with law. ITA No. 8261/Del/2018 5 7. In the result, in the aforesaid terms, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/12/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *aks/-