DT INTERIORS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO -12(2)(4), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2010-11) DT Interiors Private Limited, 301, 3rd Floor, Atharva House, Poddar Road, Malad (East), Mumbai - 400097 [PAN: AACCD9297K] …………… Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, 12(2)(4), Mumbai, Room No. 146A/262, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Mumbai - 400020 Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Tarang Sukhadia For the Respondent/Department : Shri Rajendra Chandekar Date Conclusion of hearing : 16.11.2023 Pronouncement of order : 29.11.2023

O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: By way of the present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 03/04/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 14/03/2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2.

(Assessment Year: 2010-11) 1) “The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) ("CIT(A)") erred in considering the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 while disposing the appeal of the appellant for Assessment Year 2010-11.

The appellant submits that CIT(A) be directed to pass a fresh order for the assessment year under appeal considering the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11.

2. Without prejudice to what has been stated above and in the event CIT(A)'s order pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11, the appellant submits as under:- a) (i) CIT(A) ought to have deleted disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of a sum of Rs.1,20,69,194/- as bogus expenditure on account of purchases made by the appellant from five parties.

(ii) Without prejudice to what has been stated above, CIT(A) ought to have restricted disallowance to 8% of Rs.1,20,69,194/- as has been done by him while considering grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12. b) CIT(A) ought to have deleted addition of a sum of Rs.64,422/- made by the Assessing Officer being the difference between the gross receipts and Form 26AS as unaccounted income without considering the reconciliation submitted by the appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings in its proper perspective. c) CIT(A) ought to have deleted disallowance of a sum of Rs.59,356/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of Penalty VAT (OMS) as being penalty for violation of law without actually examining the nature of penalty levied as submitted during the course of the assessment proceedings in its proper perspective. d) CIT(A) ought to have deleted disallowance of a sum of Rs.26,29,359/- made by the Assessing Officer being 90% Labour Contract/ Labour with material aggregating to Rs.29,21,510/- on a proportionate basis on the alledged reasoning of short deduction of tax at source by considering it (Assessment Year: 2010-11) as payment for professional and technical services under section 194] without considering the nature of work and supporting evidence submitted. e) CIT(A) ought to have deleted disallowance of a sum of Rs. 3,460/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of depreciation on fixed assets without considering the details submitted. f) CIT(A) ought to have deleted disallowance of a sum of Rs 2,539/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of TDS write off without considering the details submitted. g) CIT(A) ought to have deleted disallowance of a sum of Rs.11,40,640/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of labour charges paid to Noyada Yasibhai Yusufbhai for civil work carried out at various sites by completely ignoring the ledger confirmation of the said party alongwith PAN card copy. h) CIT(A) ought to have deleted disallowance of a sum of Rs.32,490/- on account of electricity charges incurred at site without considering the details submitted during the course of the assessment proceedings. i) CIT(A) ought to have deleted addition of a sum of Rs.65,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 269T on account of amount paid Rs.12,500/- as professional fees, Rs.2,500/- paid towards profession tax and Rs.50,000/- on account of NSC in the name of the Director of the appellant for obtaining VAT registration at Bangalore without considering the details submitted.

3. Without prejudice to what has been stated above, and in the event CIT(A)'s order pertains to Assessment Year 2011-12, the appellant submits as under:-

a) CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of a sum of Rs.87,85,431/- made by the Assessing Officer being the difference between the gross receipts and Form 26AS without considering the reconciliation statement submitted during the course of the Assessment proceedings.”

As per the memorandum of Appeal the present appeal has been 3. 3 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) preferred against the order, dated 03/04/2023, passed by the CIT(A) in appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, we noted that in the title particulars of Assessment Year 2010-11 have been mentioned which reconcile with the assessment order passed for the Assessment Year 2010–11, whereas in the body of the order impugned ground raised in appeal pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 have been adjudicated. In response to the query from the Bench, the Authorised Representative for the Appellant stated that the Appellant had also preferred appeal for the Assessment Year 2011–12 which is still pending adjudication. The Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the order impugned could be treated as order pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12 since the body of the order impugned deals with the grounds raised in appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and the present appeal be dismissed as being infructuous. Having considered the aforesaid submission, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Ld. Departmental Representative. Since the title of the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) states that the order pertains to Assessment Year 2010-11, the Appellant/Assessee has filed appeal on the premise that the order pertains to appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11. It is admitted position that the order passed by the CIT(A) does not deal with the grounds raised by the Appellant in appeal for the Assessment Year 2010–11. We are of the view that, given the aforesaid facts, it would be appropriate and in the interests of justice to set aside the order, dated 03/04/2023, passed by the CIT(A) with the directions to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order adjudicating the appeal after verifying the records after granting the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In terms of aforesaid, Ground No.1 raised by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes, while rest of the Ground raised by the (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous.

In result, the present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 4.