News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs Advance Surfactants India Ltd, 511/2/1, Rajokri, New Delhi
 Deepa Chauhan, C/o C.S. Anand & Co., 104, Pankaj Tower, 10-Lsc, Savita Vihar, New Delhi – 92 Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad
 M/s P.Mittal Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., B-542, 2nd Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(2), C.R. Building, New Delhi – 110 002
 Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd, 3rd Floor, Tower-C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector-43, Golf Course Road, Gurgaon
 DCIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi Vs. Sahara Care Ltd, 1, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow
 M/s. Mega Media Solutions Vs. Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Anr.
 Shri Subhash Rastogi, Raj Kumar & Associates,CAs L-7A(LGF), South Extn. Part -2, New Delhi. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward -19(3), New Delhi.a
 Sneh Lata Sawhney, 6, Link Road, Jangpura extension, New Delhi. vs. DCIT, Central circle-7 New Delhi
 AT & T Global Network Services (India) Private Limited Mohan Dev House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-1 New Delhi
 Mohd. Ismile H.No. 729, Sanjay Colony, Arthala, Ghaziabad, Uttar Prades. vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Ghaziabad.
 ACIT, Central Circle-22, New Delhi, Vs. M/sSatnam International P. Ltd., 201, Vipps Centre, 2, Community Complex, Masjid Moth, G.K. II, New Delhi

Acit, Circle 11(2), New Delhi vs. H.R. Polycoats Pvt. Ltd. 4257/2, Jai Mata Market, Tri Nagar, New Delhi 35
March, 08th 2019
          IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

               (DELHI BENCH `A' : NEW DELHI)

        BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                           AND
          SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                       ITA No. 2393/Del/2016
                      Assessment Year: 2012-13

ACIT, CIRCLE 11(2),                       VS.    H.R. POLYCOATS PVT. LTD.
NEW DELHI                                        4257/2, JAI MATA MARKET,
                                                 TRI NAGAR, NEW DELHI ­ 35
                                                 (PAN AACCH2278J)
(APPELLANT)                                      (RESPONDENT)


         Revenue by     : Sh. C.P. Singh, Sr. DR.
         Assessee by    : Sh. D.K. Jain, CA & Sh. Kartik Jain, CA


                              ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM

     The Revenue      has filed the Appeal against the Order dated

25.2.2016 of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi pertaining to assessment

year 2012-13 on the following grounds:-

         1.      Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
         case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in admitting the
         additional evidence ignoring the fact that assessee was
         given full opportunity during the assessment proceedings.
         2.      Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
         case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the
         estimate made by the AO rejecting books of account as the
         assessee was not submitting the details of stock.
         3.      "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
         case, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the affidavits
         filed by the AR regarding its attendance and submissions
                           2


not recorded by the AO is correct and thereby granting
relief to the assessee, in spite of the fact that none of the
letters filed by the assessee has the mention of the
previous hearings and the fact the AO was considerate
enough to grant 4 adjournments to the assessee back to
back during the course of assessment proceedings and
also the fact that the assessee has filed certain information
during the course of proceedings in the regular dak of the
AO."
4.        "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case, the CIT(A) was correct in ignoring the fact that the
assessee had failed to file a single original confirmation of
the parties in question and only photocopies were filed
which clearly were not bonafide evidences or compliance
to the question raised during the course of assessment
proceedings and therefore no relief could have been
granted to the assessee and also considering the fact that
even in additional evidence no proper confirmations were
filed as such before the CIT(A) and also considering the
strange    fact   that   during   the    course   of   assessment
proceedings certain 133(6) were issued and came back
unserved but still there was compliance made by these
parties before the AO."
5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was correct in holding that the assessement should have been completed by the accepting the books result of the company because of past history, the assessee being a company and the VAT assessment of credit of taxes was made by completely ignoring the fact that not a single bonafide confirmation of creditors of raw materials as well as expenses (only photocopies) were submitted either before the AO or before the CIT(A) in the 3 appellate proceedings, in spite of several opportunities granted to the assessee." 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was correct in not giving reasonable opportunity to the AO u/s. 46A for submitting remand report, on the so called additional evidences filed by the assessee, which have not been even admitted by the CIT(A) by passing a speaking order u/r. 46A(2) and also when the CIT(A) itself has not examined any of the additional evidences in a speaking manner to a conclusion to grant relief to the assessee. 7. The appellant craves leave, to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of the hearing. 2. The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity to the AO u/s. 46A for submitting remand report, on the so called additional evidences filed by the assessee, which have not been even admitted by the CIT(A) by passing a speaking order u/r. 46A(2) and also when the CIT(A) itself has not examined any of the additional evidences in a speaking manner to a conclusion to grant relief to the assessee. Hence, he requested that this matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and pass a speaking order, after giving 4 adequate opportunity of being heard to the AO by calling the remand report. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that he has passed a well reasoned order, which does not need any interference. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidences in accordance with law. However, for the sake of convenience, the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1-383 i.e. explanation to grounds of appeal; application for additional evidences filed before the CIT(A); documents annexed to the application for additional evidences before CIT(A) (a) cover letter of submissions filed before the AO (b) affidavit by the Authorised Representative and Director of the assessee (c) Sales tax assessment order of the assessee for AY 2012-13; (d) job work bills, challans, fuel bills and stock register (e) order sheet of the assessment proceedings and notices issued by the AO. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. After perusing the relevant records available with us alongwith the orders of the revenue authorities as well as the Paper Book filed by the Ld. counsel for the assessee which also contains the application for additional evidences filed before the CIT(A) and annexures thereto. After perusing the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given reasonable opportunity to the AO u/R. 46A for submitting his remand report, on the additional 5 evidences filed by the assessee, which have also not been even admitted by the CIT(A) by passing a speaking order u/r. 46A(2), which is not tenable. 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 calling AO's Remand Report on the additional evidences filed before him u/R 46A and after hearing the assessee, pass a well reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, Revenue's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07-03-2019. Sd/- Sd/- [O.P. KANT] (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dt. 07.03.2019 SR BHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT By Order, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT Delhi Benches 6
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Reengineering Software Re-engineering Software Reverse Engineering Software Reverse Development Software Change Modulation Software Conversion Software Re-creation Software Re-development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions