PRECISION BEARING HOUSE,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-46(3), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not considered the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. In the interest of justice, the issues were set aside to the AO for fresh consideration after examining all evidence and providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2015-16. The assessee contended that the lower authorities did not provide adequate opportunity for hearing and failed to consider documentary evidence regarding a refundable amount debited to the trading account.
What were the issues?
Whether the lower authorities properly considered the documentary evidence and provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee regarding a refundable amount incorrectly debited to the trading account.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 28.5.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2015-16.
Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that lower authorities have not granted adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He further stated that AO in his order has noted that since the amount is refundable therefore the same should not have been debited in trading account rather shown in the balance sheet and not considered the documentary evidences filed by the assessee. He further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has simply upheld the order of the AO by stating that no documentary evidence has been filed for substantiating the claim by the assessee and passed a non- speaking order, however, the documents were filed before him, which was not considered by him. Hence, he requested to remit back the issues to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, as now the assessee is in possession of all the documents for substantiating its claim.
Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I find that assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1-21 in which he has attached the Clarification on Refund of 4% Special Additional Duty vide Circular No. 16/2008 – Customs; Procedure to be adopted for refund of 4% Special Additional Duty vide Circular NO. 6/2008- Customs; Notification for claiming refund of 4% Special Additional Duty dated 14.9.2017; Reply filed before CIT(A) dated 24.5.2018; Details of import purchases alongwith Ledger Account filed before AO during assessment proceedings; copy of bill of entries and other details submitted before AO and copy of sample tax invoice showing SAD charged from customers, which was not discussed/considered by the lower authorities, while adjudicating the issues. In view of the above contention of the assessee and in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law and after considering all the documentary evidences filed by the assessee, as aforesaid and give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by passing a speaking order. Assessee is also directed to fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment and file all the documentary evidences before him.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026