Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT
ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 24.3.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-6, Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:-
That under the facts and circumstances, no reasonable
opportunity of hearing has been allowed by both the lower authorities.
2.1 That Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in law as well as on merits, in holding that the assessee has declared rental income of Rs.
23,56,000/- p.m. from Birla Sun Life Management Co. Ltd. as income from business against correctly as income from house property, while the assessee has himself declared the same as income from house property.
2.2 That the brokerage paid of Rs. 23,56,000/- to the agent for getting Birla Sun Life Management Co. as tenant should have been allowed as a deduction out of income from house property.
2.3 That without prejudice, in case of not allowing G.N. 1,1,
Rs. 23,56,000/- shall be allowed as a deduction from income from business and profession.
2.4 That without prejudice, under the facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that brokerage expenditure of Rs. 23,56,000/- is of capital nature.
That under the facts and circumstances, disallowance of professional charges to M/s VBM & Associates, Chartered
Accountants, of Rs. 57,500 u/s. (a)(ia) is unsustainable in law as well as on merits.
4. That under the facts and circumstances, the AO
exceeded his jurisdiction in giving a finding in respect of some amount as addition u/s. 2(22)(e) on some other assessee namely “Nanak Ram Jaisinghani” while framing the assessment of this assessee which should be expunged and the ld. CIT(A) also erred in law and on facts in not expunging these remarks / findings from the impugned assessment order.
The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.
3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has not given sufficient opportunity to substantiate its claim in producing the necessary evidences and passed the exparte order. Hence, he requested that this matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and decide on merit, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He also undertakes that he will not take any unnecessary adjournment and will appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on whichever date fixed by the Bench.
On the other hand, Ld. DR has not raised objection to the request of the Assessee.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. After perusing the relevant records available with us alongwith the orders of the revenue authorities, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee in substantiating its claim. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assesse. The assessee through his counsel is directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on 17.01.2019 at 10.00 AM and will remain cooperative in the proceedings and not to take any unnecessary adjournment. There is no need to issue notice, because this order has been pronounced in the Open Court.
In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04-12-2018.