SHIBANEE AND KAMAL ARCHITECTS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 972/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Shibanee and Kamal Architects, The Assistant 78 Imagine, ITPL Main Commissioner of Road, Income Tax, EPIP Zone, Whitefield, Circle – 2(3)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Vs. Bengaluru. PAN: AAAFE3633P APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Mrs. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee by Advocate : Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Revenue by CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 10-11-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17-11-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 02/08/2022 passed by NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2012-13 on following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer ("AO") without considering the submissions filed by the Appellant and thus, the order passed is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant has failed to participate in the appeal proceedings when in fact, the Appellant has filed its detailed replies to the notices issued by the AO/CIT(A).

Page 2 of 4 ITA No. 972/Bang/2022 3. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 1,95,190/- paid towards property tax without appreciating that the tax has been paid subsequent to capitalization of land and is thus, a business expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act). 4. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 2,20,445/- incurred towards travel expenses without appreciating that the same was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. 5. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in disallowing the interest expenditure of Rs 60,19,355/- when the same was incurred for business purpose. 6. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in disallowing of interest expenditure on house property of Rs. 10,61,221/- under Section 24 of the Act. 7. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing an amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- under Section 40A(2) of the Act as being excess payment of salary. 8. That the AO/CIT(A) erred in going beyond his jurisdiction in questioning the commercial rationale of the Appellant. 9. That the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in disallowing the actual cost incurred for acquisition of land and thus disallowing proportionate amount of Rs. 2,44,406/-. 10. That the AO erred in issuing notice under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act and initiating penalty proceedings. The Appellant submits that the above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one another. The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter. by deletion, substitution or otherwise, the above grounds of appeal. at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 2. We note that the above issues has not been considered by the Ld.CIT(A) on merits. Instead the appeal was dismissed for none had appeared before the first appellate authority. The Ld.CIT(A) has observed as under: “4. Decision:- The assessee has been given several opportunities to represent its case on 05.11.2018, 21.12.2018, 12.02.2019, 04.03.2020, 20.08.2020, 25.01.2021 and 03.06.2022, however, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, having

Page 3 of 4 ITA No. 972/Bang/2022 considered the facts of the case and evidences available on record, the addition made by the AO is sustained, while dismissing all grounds of appeal.” 3. The Ld.AR submitted that all the notices were issued to assessee when covid period existed and there was restriction in moving around by the people. Assessee as well as revenue were not in the condition to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) because of which the submissions could not be filed and issues was not argued on merits. She submitted that the appeal may be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) and assessee undertakes to appear with all the relevant submissions / details in support of its claim. The Ld.DR did not object for the above submissions by the Ld.AR. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 4. Based on the joint submission by both sides, we remand all the issues to the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on merits having regards to the evidences / submissions filed by assessee in support of its claim. We accordingly, remit this appeal back to the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo consideration. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th November, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (PADMAVATHY S) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 17th November, 2022. /MS /

Page 4 of 4 ITA No. 972/Bang/2022 Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore