IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `FRIDAY-E' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 4967/Del/2017
Assessment Year: 2014-15
NOIDA POWER CO. LTD., vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2,
GR. NOIDA, NOIDA
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
H-BLOCK, ALPHA-II SECTOR
GREATER NOIDA
NOIDA
UTTAR PRADESH 201310
(PAN: AAACN4984D)
(ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by: Ms. Sushmita Basu, CA
Revenue by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR.
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated
31.5.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi relating to Assessment
Year 2014-15 on the following grounds.
"The grounds mentioned hereinafter are without
prejudice to one another.
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the order dated 30th May, 2017 passed by
the learned CIT (Appeals) upholding the order
dated 22nd December, 2016 passed under section
143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') by the Assessing Officer is bad
in law.
2
2. That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in not
adjudicating ground nos. 2 to 6 raised by the
appellant in the grounds of appeal filed before him.
3(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in
confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, in
disallowing the appellant's claim for deduction of
an aggregate sum of Rs. 50,27,61,120/-, being the
difference between the purchase price of power
billed by Uttar Pradesh Power Purchase
Corporation Limited ('UPPCL') amounting to Rs.
1,61,26,43,888/- and the purchase price of power
debited to the Profit & Loss A/c. by the appellant
amounting to Rs. 1,10,98,82,768/-.
3(b) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in
confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in
holding the aforesaid liability of the appellant as
contingent in nature.
3(c) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in
confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in
disallowing the appellant's claim for deduction of
the impugned sum of Rs. 5O,27,61,120/- on the
ground that the appellant itself has considered the
same to be disputed and therefore not debited the
same to the Profit and Loss account.
4(a) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in
not adjudicating ground NO.2 raised by the
appellant in the grounds of appeal filed before him
relating to allowance of set off of brought forward
losses and unabsorbed depreciation while
calculating total taxable income under the
3
provisions of the Act other than section 115JB of
the Act.
4(b) That on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the action of not
allowing set off of brought forward losses and
unabsorbed depreciation while calculating total
taxable income under the provisions of the Act
other than section 115JB of the Act is bad in law.
5(a) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in
not adjudicating ground NO.3 raised by the
appellant in the grounds of appeal filed before him
relating to non-quantification of entitled amount of
business loss and unabsorbed depreciation to be
carried forward.
5(b) That on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the action of not
quantifying the amount of business loss and
unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward is
bad in law.
6(a) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in
not adjudicating ground NO.4 raised by the
appellant in the grounds of appeal filed before him
relating to non-quantification of the entitled
amount of MAT credit to be carried forward as per
the provisions of section 115JAA of the Act.
6(b) That on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the action of not
quantifying the amount of MAT credit to be carried
forward as per the provisions of section 115JAA of
the Act is bad in law.
4
7(a) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in
not adjudicating ground o. 5 raised by the
appellant in the grounds of appeal filed before him
relating to charging of interest by the Assessing
Officer u/s. 234A of the Act amounting to INR
32,75,420.
7(b) That on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the action of charging
interest u/s. 234A of the Act amounting to INR
32,75,420 is bad in law.
8(a) That the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in
not adjudicating ground No.6 raised by the
appellant in the grounds of appeal filed before him
relating to charging of interest by the Assessing
Officer u/s. 234B of the Act amounting to INR
91,96,656.
8(b) That on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the action of charging
interest u/s. 234B of the Act amounting to INR
91,96,656 is bad in law.
9. That the appellant craves leave to add,
amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any of
the grounds stated hereinabove either before or at
the time of hearing of this appeal.
2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld.
CIT(A) has passed the non-speaking order without giving sufficient
opportunity to represent and substantiate the case of the assessee.
Hence, he requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file
of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, after giving adequate opportunity
of being heard to the assessee.
5
3. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially
the impugned order dated 31.5.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A). We are of
the view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the non-speaking order, which is
contrary to law and facts on the file and against the principle of natural
justice. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the
issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh,
after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Assessee is directed through his counsel to fully cooperate with the Ld.
CIT(A) in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment
with the liberty to file any evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate
its case.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for
statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 04/12/2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
[R.K. PANDA] [H.S. SIDHU]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 04/12/2019
"SRB"
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches
|
