VAG INFOTECH ,DELHI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-53(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3572/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves VAG Infotech appealing against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed their appeal for non-prosecution regarding various disallowances and additions made by the Ld. AO for the assessment year 2013-14. The main issues included the non-maintainability of the appeal, violations of principles of natural justice, and incorrect disallowances and additions such as interest expenditure, business promotion expenses, and an alleged long-term capital gain under section 50C. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case and thus remitted the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31654 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KATOCH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Depreciation; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 14A; 50C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3572/Del/2024 A.YR. : 2013-14 VAG INFOTECH, D-42, SOUTH EXTENSION PART-I, NEW DELHI – 110 049 (PAN: AAAFV2681C) VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 53(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR. Date of hearing : 13.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 18.11.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the instant Appeal against the Order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)/NFAC, Delhi dated 24.4.2024, relating to assessment year 2013- 14 on the following grounds:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the appeal filed by the assessee as non-maintainable and further erred in dismissing the appeal and that too without providing the adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2 | P a g e 2: That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of assessee which is in violation of principles of natural justice and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the following addition/disallowances made by Ld. AO which are not tenable even on facts and in law also and the same were based on incorrect facts and findings and in violation of principles of natural justice. (a) Rs.6,84,207/- disallowance of interest expenditure. (b) Rs.2,919/- disallowance u/s 14A. (c) Rs. 19,358/- adhoc disallowance under the head Telephone Expenses, Diesel & Petrol Expenses and depreciation on car. (d) Rs. 1,02,760/- disallowance of business promotion expenses. (e) Rs. 1,00,31,250/- addition on account of alleged LTCG by invoking section 50C. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not deleting the various addition/disallowances as stated above, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there is a delay of 44 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The reasons for delay has been pointed out that notices were not received by the assessee, hence, it is prayed that delay in 3 | P a g e dispute may kindly be condoned. Upon hearing the Ld. AR and perusing the records, in the interest of justice, the delay in dispute is condoned. 3. In this case, in the assessment order, the AO made the assessment as under:- Income from business & profession (As declared in ITR) Rs. 65,08,906/- Addition on interest expenditure Rs. 6,84,207/- Addition u/s. 14A Rs. 2,919/- Addition on personal expenditure Rs. 19,358/- Addition on business promotion Rs. 1,02,760/- Rs. 56,99,662/- Income from capital gain (as declared in ITR): Rs. 1,14,31,992/- Addition u/s. 45 r.w. 50C Rs. 1,00,31,250/- Rs. 2,14,63,242/- Gross total income Rs. 1,57,63,580/- Total taxable income Rs. 1,57,63,580/- 3.1 Against the above order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 3.2 Against the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, assessee is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that assesssee has not been able to canvass the case properly before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, he pleaded that an opportunity may be given to the assessee to properly canvass his case before the Ld. CIT(A). 4.1 After considering the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view, that interest of justice will be served, if the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh by passing a speaking order, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 4 | P a g e 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18/11/2024. Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SRB Copy forwarded to:- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar "