Gaurav Bhatia, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-34(2), New Delhi

ITA 8313/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1277 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS SURBHI GOYAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; 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. 8313/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 GAURAV BHATIA, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BT-14 BLOCK, SHALIMAR BAGH WARD-34(2), NEW DELH I NEW DELHI-110088 (PAN:ALKPB5004A) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MRS. SURBHI GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY : SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 27.07.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-12, NEW DELHI R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] IS BAD, BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON THE FACTS. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21,21,080/- MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT AND PASSED THE ORDER IN HASTE. 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO BY DISALLOWING COMMISSION EXPENSE FOR RS. 15,63,080/- WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY APPROPRIATE JUSTIFICATION FOR OR EVIDENCE AGAINST THE SAME. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO BY DISALLOWING VAGUE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LOANS @12% AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,58,000/- WITHOUT GOING INTO THE INTRICACIES OF THE TRANSACTION AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF LOAN AMOUNT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PASSED THE IMPUGN ED ORDER EXPARTE WITHOUT GIVING THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. H E REQUESTED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BE SET ASIDE TO THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME FRESH AS PER LAW AND AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES. 4. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PA SSED BY THE REVENUE 3 AUTHORITIES AND I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED IMPUGNED ORDER EXPARTE WITHOUT PROVIDING SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , I AM SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME FRESH AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING FULLY OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17/12/2019. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 17/12/2019 SH COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES