Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 03.11.2017 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15.
The grievances of the assessee read as under:
That the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant though Ld. CIT(A) has shown decided appeal considering grounds raised by assessee in appeal memo , but the appeal is decided in the manner as dismissed in limine for non attendance by the appellant without appreciating that no notice has been served on assessee.
2. That Ld. CIT(A) Ghaziabad was duty bound to adjudicate the following grounds as specifically raised before him:-
2.1 That Ld. Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by completing the assessment on an income of Rs. 13,64,03,123/- against the returned income of Rs. Nil by making the total addition of Rs 13,64,03,123/- and therefore, assessment order deserves to be annulled.
2.2 That the ld. Assessing officer failed to provide any proper opportunity of being heard in as much as no proper show cause notice is given before completing the assessment and therefore provisions of natural justice has been defeated.
2.3 Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by applying the provision of section 40(ia) without appreciating the facts and law in right perspective.
2.4 That. Ld. Assessing officer-has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by disallowing the depreciation on the pretax of double deduction by not considering the reply and case laws cited by assessee in right perspective and therefore, depreciation of Rs. 7,77,31,655/- is deserves to be allowed. Even order of CIT(A) and ITAT in the case of assessee is also not followed by assessing officer.
2.5. That Ld. Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by taking the figure of utilization at Rs. 36,28,88,784/- instead of actual utilization of Rs. 54,60,27,794/- and therefore tax demand of Rs. 6,16,63,347/- is unlawful and deserves to be cancelled.
2.6 That Ld. Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by disallowing the interest on loan of Rs 3,58,01,926/- without appreciating the facts in right perspective and therefore addition is liable to be deleted.
2.7 Without prejudice to above assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts of the' case by disallowing the 50% of the car running expenses amounting to Rs. 3,80,321/- out of total expenses of Rs. 7,60,642/- treating personal expanses without appreciating • the facts in right perspective and therefore addition is liable to be deleted.
2.8 Without prejudice to above assessing officer ahs erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by disallowing the expenses of Rs. 3,70,000/- by applying the provision of section 40(ia) of the Act without appreciating the facts and law in right perspective and therefore addition is liable to be deleted.
2.9 Without prejudice to above assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by disallowing the 50% of the SSP office expenses amounting to Rs. 1,15,530/- treating personal expanses without appreciating the facts in right perspective and therefore addition is liable to be deleted.
3. Without prejudice to above assessing officer ahs erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by disallowing the legal expenses of Rs. 4,00,000/-by applying the provision of section 40(ia) of the Act without appreciating the facts and law in right perspective and therefore addition is liable to be deleted.
3.1. Without prejudice to above assessing officer ahs erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by disallowing the expenses of Rs. 10,11,240/- by applying the provision of section 40(ia) of the Act without appreciating the facts and law in right perspective and therefore addition is liable to be deleted.”
At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that on identical set of facts, this Tribunal in in assessee’s own case has set aside the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that since the issues and circumstances are identical, the decision of the co-ordinate bench is to be followed.
The ld. DR fairly conceded to this.
We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and have duly considered the decision of the co-ordinate bench [supra]. This Tribunal, in has held as under:
“(D.2) In view of the foregoing, we set aside all the issues in dispute in the present appeal before us, to the file of the Assessing Officer, with the direction to pass a fresh order as per law including CBDT Circular, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This appeal is disposed off in accordance with the aforesaid directions. For statistical purposes, the appeal is partly allowed.”
On finding parity of facts, respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench [supra], we restore the entire issues to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar directions.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 31.03.2022.