Regal Buildtech P.Ltd, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi

MA 644/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5891 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 M.A NO. 644/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: FRIDAY B NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER M.A NO. 644/DEL/2019 IN ITA NO. 7505/DEL/2018 (A.Y. 2014-15) M/S. REGAL BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. 2/48, SHOPPING CENTRE, MALCHA MARG, NEW DELHI AACCR9566P (APPLICANT) VS ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-21(1) NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SH. AJAY WADHWA, ADV RESPONDENT BY MS. KIRTI SANKRATYAYAN, CIT DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPECT OF ORDER DATED 18 TH JUNE, 2019 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 2. THE LD. AR FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS IN OR DER DATED 18/6/2019 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 5/2/2019 T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 29 O F THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. THE DETAILED ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT RESPECT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 05.02.201 9. BUT AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN A FIN DING IN RESPECT OF THE DATE OF HEARING 10.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.09.2021 2 M.A NO. 644/DEL/2019 ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE APPLICATION. THER EFORE THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE ORDER AND ORDER D ATED 18/6/2019 BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 29 AND THE SAME WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 5/2/2019, BUT THE SAME WAS N OT EXPRESSLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE ORDER DATED 18/6/2019. THUS, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. WE ALLOW THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND MODIFY PARA 10 OF ORDER DATED 18/6/2019 ACCORDINGLY. THE MODIFIED PARA 10 O F ORDER DATED 18.06.2019 PASSED BY US IS AS FOLLOWS: 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT PROJECTED FIGURES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. BUT D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVIDED THE CLARIFICATIONS DATED 16.12.2016 AS TO FROM WHERE TH E PROJECTED FIGURES WERE TAKEN. AS PER THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR, THE PR OJECTED CASH FLOWS WERE BASED ON THE VARIOUS REPORTS/DATA GATHERED BY THE A NALYST AND MANAGEMENT AND AFTER ANALYZING AND VERIFYING THE SAME BY THE V ALUER. BUT THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS W ELL AS BY THE CIT(A). FROM THE RECORDS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) NEVER ASKED FOR FURNISHING THE DATA FROM THE ASSESS EE AT ANY POINT OF TIME. THUS, THEY HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE PROJECTED CASH FLOWS. IT IS AGREED THAT VALUATI ON IS NOT MECHANICAL PROCESS BUT, DETERMINED FROM MARKET TRENDS AND OTHER FACTOR S AND AFTER CONSIDERING THEM, THE VALUER CAN DETERMINE THE VALUE OF SHARE. EVEN IF THE SAID IS DOUBTED, 3 M.A NO. 644/DEL/2019 THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE GIVEN PROPER OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CLARIFY THE ASPECTS OF THE VALUATION OF THE PROJECTED CASH FLOW, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FA ILED TO DO SO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UN DER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. THE SAID ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES ARE TAKEN ON RECORD AND WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VE RIFY THE SAME. THUS, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK ALL THE ISSUES CONTES TED HEREIN TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SA ME AFRESH AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE RELEVANT ASPECTS OF THE VALUATION METHOD REGARD ING PROJECTED CASH FLOW IN CONSONANCE WITH THE EVIDENCES FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE US A ND ARRIVE AT A REASONED CONCLUSION. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THUS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. IN RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN PRESENCE OF B OTH THE PARTIES ON THE 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 10/09/2021 R. N. SR. PS * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI