ITL LABS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI V. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 12(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 1713/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves ITL Labs Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting an order from the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which assessed the company's income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 significantly higher than reported. The primary contention was the addition of Rs. 1,19,90,000 under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which the appellant argued was unjustified and based on incorrect facts and figures pertaining to another assessee. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and noted the procedural error by the CIT(A), leading to the remand of the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474889 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKALP MALIK; SANJAY
• Section: 154; 68

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 1713/Del/2024 ITL Labs (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1713/Del/2024, A.Y.2017-18) M/s ITL Labs Pvt. Ltd. B-283-284, 1st Floor Mangolpuri Industrial Area Phase-1, New Delhi PAN : AAACI9906L Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(2), C. R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv & Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 16/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM : This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [“NFAC” for short], dated 17/08/2023 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of Appeal are as under: - “1. That considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant-Assessee denies its liability to be assessed at an income of Rs. 2,81,66,960/- against the returned income of Rs. 1,61,76,960-and hence denies any liability to pay tax, interest and/or penalty thereon. 2 ITA No. 1713/Del/2024 ITL Labs (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2.That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the L.d. AO erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,19,90,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,19,90,000 being cash credits during demonetisation period u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without considering that the source of the cash deposits being bank withdrawals and cash sales, was duly explained and hence no addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE can be upheld. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making the addition of Rs. 1,19,90,000/- solely on the basis of suspicion and surmises without proper application of mind, which has no place in the eyes of law. 5 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the books of accounts as there existed no reason whatsoever to reject the same and as such, the rejection of books of account is illegal and unjustified. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing an order in the case of the assessee on the facts, figures pertaining to another, different assessee, hence the order is liable to be quashed outrightly 7 That the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to be given another opportunity by remanding the matter back. Rather, strictures may kindly be passed for passing of the appellate order without any application of mind and on the basis of facts, figures and circumstances of another case 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 9. That the Appellant-Assessee craves the leave to add, amend, modify and/or delete any ground of appeal during the course of the appeal.” 3 ITA No. 1713/Del/2024 ITL Labs (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 3. There is a delay of 167 days in filing the present Appeal. An application for condoning the delay has been filed by the Assessee contending thatin the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) the facts and the issues discussed thereon was not pertaining to the Assessee, since there was an error, the Assessee filed an application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) for rectifying the said error. The said application filed by the assessee has not been disposed by the CIT(A) for long and finally the said application has not been entertained by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, submitted that the present Appeal has been filed with delay of 167 days in filing the Appeal, thus submitted that the delay caused in filling the present Appeal is not intentional but for the bonafide reasons mentioned above. 4. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay in filing the present Appeal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee on addressing on the grounds of appeal of the Assessee submitted that the CIT(A) committed error in passing the order impugned wherein the entire facts and the grounds of appeal and the submissions recorded in the order are not pertaining to the Assessee, thus submitted that the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be quashed. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the grounds of appeal of the Assessee were not been decided by the CIT(A),further, the Ld. DR agreed with the contention of the Ld. AR that the facts and issues of 4 ITA No. 1713/Del/2024 ITL Labs (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT some other case has been produced in the order impugned, however, the same is due to unintentional and the same is bonafide error of the CIT(A), therefore, sought for remanding the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal has not taken into consideration of the relevant facts and the grounds urged by the Assessee and proceeded to dismiss the Appeal by mentioning the facts of some other Assessee, in our opinion the matter should be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the Appeal after affording opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. 8. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open Court on 18th October, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18/10/2024 R.N, Sr. PS 5 ITA No. 1713/Del/2024 ITL Labs (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "