NARESH CHANDRA BHAYANA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-41(2), NEW DELHI

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-15], New Delhi dated 29.01.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in law and against facts of the case.

c) Disallowance of Rs. 1,05,000/- on account of commission paid.

2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the Revenue Authorities have decided the case against the assessee without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating the claim. He has also filed some additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in which he has attached various documentary evidences and requested that the documentary evidences filed by the assessee require thorough consideration at the level of the Assessing Officer, therefore the issues in dispute may be set aside to the AO for fresh consideration with the directions to consider the documentary evidences.

3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and filed written submissions in which the Ld. DR stated that the assessee did not file any evidences before the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A), even after giving sufficient opportunity before them. He requested that in view of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision dated 27.6.2018 in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Versus Ashokji Chanduji Thakor decided in Appeal No. 710-717 of 2018 appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed. 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities, written submission of the Ld. DR, alongwith the additional evidences filed by the assessee i.e. application for admitting the additional evidence u/R 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in which assessee has attached the photocopy of confirmation of accounts dated 16.11.2018; copy of ITR Verification Form AY 2013- 14 of Anju Sharma; photocopy of PAN : AMLPS0048M of Anju Sharma; Certificate issued by M/s APG Builders Pvt. Ltd. certifying the loan confirmation of Rs. 10 lacs to Naresh Chandra Bhayana, Prop. Kathuria Portfolios; copy of Company Master Data; copy of balance sheet as on 31.3.2011 and 31.3.2013; copy of decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kansal Nerolac Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2014 49 taxman.com 208 (Bombay); ITAT, New Delhi decision dated 05.01.2015 in the case of Sh. Bali Ram (Deceased) vs. ITO passed in ITA No. 5206/Del/2013 (AY 2007-08). I am of the view that the documentary evidences produced by the assessee are very much essential to substantiate the claim of the assessee at the level of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice I admit the aforesaid additional evidences filed by the assessee and set aside the issues in dispute to the Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesseee, after considering all the documents, additional evidences and the case laws to be filed by the assessee.