M/S. NET 4 INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

The assessee Company was engaged in the business of providing Internet Infrastructure Solutions. Return of Income was filed electronically on 29/09/2011 declaring income of Rs. 19,31,38,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20/09/2012 was issued and duly served upon the assessee within the prescribed statutory time limit. Thereafter, further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 10/06/2013 along with questionnaire was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to these statutory notices CA/AR of the assessee company attended the assessment proceeding and filed necessary details/documents as called for therein from time to time. The Assessing Officer after examining the details made addition of Rs.50,51,81/- in respect of disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.5,77,46,000/- in respect of non deduction of TDS u/s 195 on the income charitable tax in India and thus as per the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Domain Rent Registration Domain/Royalty was disallowed. The Assessing Officer also made disallowances of interest on late deposit of TDS and made addition of Rs.4,70,000/- along with addition of Rs. 29,93,740/- in respect of transactions with Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Thus, the Assessing Officer assessed in income of Rs. 25,93,98,990/-.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT (A) has not granted reasonable opportunity to the assessee and in fact has not taken into account the evidences filed before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the CIT(A) as the order of the CIT(A) is ex- parte and principle of natural justice has not been followed by the CIT(A).

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the order of the CIT (A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the order of the CIT(A) is ex-parte and has not taken cognizance of the relevant evidences produced before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings as well. The order is non-speaking. Therefore, we are setting aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanding back all the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the issues on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.