M/s Akshaj Infra Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. DCIT, Chandigarh

MA 76/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 102 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0582 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण , च डीगढ़ यायपीठ, च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No. 75 & 76/CHD/2018 in (आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 482 & 483/C HD/ 20 15 ) (A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/s Akshaj Infra Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. बनाम The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh. थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AADCK1301N अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR स ु नवाई क तार#ख/Date of Hearing : 20.10.2023 उदघोषणा क तार#ख/Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2023 आदेश/ORDER Per A.D. Jain, Vice President: The present Misc. Applications arising out of ITA Nos. 482/Chd/2015 and ITA 483/CHD/2015, pertaining to 2010-11 and 2011-12 assessment year respectively have been moved by the Assessee pleading therein for recalling the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The assessee in these applications, contends that the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Tribunal was passed ex-parte qua the assessee; that at the relevant time, the assessee company was in the MA. No. 75 & 76/Chd/2018 in ITA 482&483/Chd/2015 2 process of change of Directors and it could not brief its Counsel and there was no other staff in the company who could submit the adjournment letter. It has been submitted that since the assessee has not been heard, the matter be restored in situ and the assessee be heard on merits. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, before us, reiterated the contents of the applications. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied on the order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Having heard the parties, we find that vide order dated 24.10.2016, the matter regarding rental income and claim of expenses against the same, including depreciation, has been remanded to the ld. CIT(A), observing that the assessee had not produced sufficient evidence before the AO to substantiate as to how the rental income was business income of the assessee, so as to enable it to claim deduction of the expenditure, when the assessee had not shown any such property as its stock-in-trade and had not made any claim of survey of rent before the AO; and that the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal without considering the findings of the AO, without deciding the appeal on merits by giving specific reasons for his decision and by giving benefit of doubt to the assessee, having been swayed by the fact that the assessee is an infrastructure company and deals in Real Estate. MA. No. 75 & 76/Chd/2018 in ITA 482&483/Chd/2015 3 5. We do not find force in the contentions on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not made out a case of sufficient reason for non appearance before the Tribunal at the relevant time. It has not been controverted that the notice of hearing was duly served on the assessee as noted by the Tribunal in para 3 of its order. It is also seen that the assessee does not controvert the observations of the Tribunal to the effect that before the AO, the assessee had failed to produce any evidence that it had shown any such property as its stock-in-trade and to show as to how the rental income was the business income of the assessee. In these facts, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error apparent from record in remitting the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A), to be decided afresh on merits, in accordance with law. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, finding no merit in the applications filed by the assessee, both these applications are liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, both the applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.10.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( A.D. JAIN ) Accountant Member Vice President Dated : 25.10.2023 “Poonam” MA. No. 75 & 76/Chd/2018 in ITA 482&483/Chd/2015 4 आदेश क त+ल,प अ-े,षत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु 2त/ CIT 4. ,वभागीय त न6ध, आयकर अपील#य आ6धकरण, च8डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायकपंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar