KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI V. ACIT, CIRCLE- 14(2), NEW DELHI

MA 332/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9165 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

MA No.332/Del/2022 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.332/Del/2022 (In I.T.A No.6950/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Pvt. Ltd., G 02, Salcon Aurum Complex, 4, Commercial Centre, Jasola, New Delhi. बनाम Vs. ACIT Circle 14(2) C.R. Building, New Delhi. PAN No.AACCK380L ा Appellant /Respondent िनधा रतीक ओरसे /Assessee by Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA & Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA राज वक ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR स ु नवाईक तारीख/ Date of hearing: 05.01.2024 उ ोषणाक तारीख/Pronouncement on 15.01.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, J.M. Heard and perused the record. 2. The present application is filed by the Assessee who was respondent in the appeal and Ld. AR has submitted that while passing the order dated 06.09.2022 the Bench has set aside the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of directions contained in the order. It was submitted by MA No.332/Del/2022 2 the Ld. AR that at the time of hearing the Ld. DR filed written submissions and contended that the order of CIT(A) directing the AO/TPO to verify charging of interest by assessee from Non-AE and AE is bad in law as the CIT(A) was not empowered to issue such directions. 3. Ld.AR submitted that at the time of arguments on behalf of respondent-assessee relying Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 it was brought to the notice of the Bench that based on specific factual finding that there were no net receivable rather a case of net payable the CIT(A) should have deleted the adjustment at the threshold. 4. Ld. AR has taken across us through the matter on record to buttress this argument that as there was no net receivable and no further verification was required. 5. Ld. AR pointed out that when reliance was placed on Rule 27 then only for not challenging certain observations of the CIT(A) by separate appeal the denial of the relief is an error apparent from record and the assesse’s submissions arising out of recourse to Rule 27 should be taken into account and be adjudicated. MA No.332/Del/2022 3 6. Ld. DR has not argued anything substantial but contended that the same would be beyond the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act. 7. After giving thoughtful consideration to the submissions and the material before us we are of the considered view that as the plea for restoration of the DR was accepted primarily for the observation made in para 8 that the assessee had not challenged certain observations of the CIT(A) for which the Ld. AR has relied on Rule 27 to support the order of CIT(A) on the ground decided against the respondent and same remains not adjudicate the same an error apparent from record. We allow the application. Let the matter be listed again for consideration of argument of Ld. AR relying Rules 27. 8. Registry is directed to list the appeal for hearing in due course. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (ANUBHAV SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15.01.2024 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. MA No.332/Del/2022 4 Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT: Delhi Benches-Delhi