M/S. PARKWOOD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs ITO, NEW DELHI

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

[A] This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 20.10.2014 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVII, Delhi, [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fcs of the case to upheld the addition of Rs. 2,59,368/- made by the AO u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA No.- 329/Del/2015. M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in alw as well as on facts of the case in upholding the disallowance of claim u/s 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 61,44,345/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, vary, modify or otherwise amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally disposed of.”

[B] Vide Assessment Order dated 21.03.2013 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the I.T. Act”). The relevant portion of the Assessment Order dated 21.03.2013 is reproduced as under:-

“

ITA No.- 329/Del/2015. M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.- 329/Del/2015. M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.- 329/Del/2015. M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.- 329/Del/2015. M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd.

”

[C] The Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 20.10.2014, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. The relevant portion of the order dated 20.10.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

“

”

ITA No.- 329/Del/2015. M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd.

[D] This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 20.10.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Surender Pal, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (“Ld. Sr. DR”, for short). However, none was present from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. Sr. DR; who relied upon the order dated 21.03.2013 of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned order dated 20.10.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the materials on record, including the order of the AO and the aforesaid impugned order dated 20.10.2014 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph [C] of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 20.10.2014 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on merit. After hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 20.10.2014 of Ld. CIT(A), and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

[E] Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with Proviso to ITA No.- 329/Del/2015. M/s Parkwood Developers Pvt. Ltd. Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.

[F] In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16/12/2019

M/S. PARKWOOD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI