VIKU IMPEX PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2622/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 January 2019AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and to produce all necessary evidence regarding the contractors.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a disallowance of Rs. 42,35,010/- for earth/soil filling expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount as the expenditure was not proven, and the assessee could not produce the contractors. One contractor was in police custody, preventing his appearance or response.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of earth/soil filling expenditure was justified without allowing the assessee to produce evidence and the contractors.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Before: SHRI & AND & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVASHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Deepesh, Shri Shubham Sobti
For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Senior DR
Hearing: 10.01.2019Pronounced: 14.01.2019

PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT :- PRESIDENT

1.

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-19, New Delhi dated 31st January, 2013.

2.

At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel that it is a small appeal involving disallowance of `42,35,010/-. That the Assessing Officer disallowed the same on the ground that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for earth/soil filling was not proved. That the assessee had engaged three contractors for the work of earth/soil filling and the Assessing Officer asked to produce those persons before him. He stated that one of the contractors viz., Shri

2 ITA-2622/Del/2013 Jasbir Singh was in police custody at Haldwani at the relevant time and therefore, neither he could be produced nor any reply could be sent by him in response to Assessing Officer’s notice u/s 133(6). He, therefore, submitted that if the matter is set aside and send back to the file of the Assessing Officer, the assessee would be able to furnish all necessary evidence relating to Shri Jasbir Singh and also other contractors and, if necessary, they can also be produced before the Assessing Officer.

3.

Learned Senior DR relied upon the orders of authorities below. However, she has no serious objection for setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.

4.

After hearing both the sides, we deem it appropriate to set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. We direct him to allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to mention that the assessee will produce all necessary evidence with regard to all the three contractors before the Assessing Officer and will cooperate in the assessment proceedings.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 14.01.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →