Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 04.01.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds: -
1. “The impugned order of assessment made by Assessing Officer and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, wrong on facts and absolutely based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures.
2. The service of notice u/s 143(2) of Income Tax Act is bad in law and was served on 1st October, 2013.
3. That the impugned order or Income Tax Officer was contrary to law of natural justice.
4. The Assessing Officer has erred in rejecting the submissions made by the assessee without proper verification and has acted arbitrarily; the same has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) as per his ex party order. i. Arbitrarily disallowance of payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- as registered office rent vide premise no. K-336, Sarita Vihar, Delhi-110073. 2 A.Y. 2012-13 SSMP Industry Ltd. ii. Arbitrarily disallowance of Rs. 10,80,000/- as salary payment to V.P. Administration, ignoring the facts of employee. iii. Arbitrarily disallowance of non-recoverable amount against dues outstanding and the outcome of outstanding are under settlement with the party.
5. The appellant craves to add, delete, and modify/amend the grounds of appeal before the final hearing and subject to the prayer before the Hon’ble Member.”
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 Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of AO merely on suspicion, surmises and conjectures file of the AO for fresh adjudication. He also submitted that the service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is bad in law and was served on 1.10.2013.
It was the further contention that AO has rejected the submissions without proper verification and has acted arbitrarily and the same has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his exparte order dated 4.1.2017. He further submitted that now the assessee has all the evidences/ documents in his possession to substantiate its case, if the Bench has set aside the issue in dispute to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard. 3 A.Y. 2012-13 SSMP Industry Ltd.
Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the request of the assessee’s counsel.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I have also gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities as well as the contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal
. I find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. counsel for the assessee that the service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is bad in law and was served on 1.10.2013. I further note that AO has rejected the submissions without proper verification and Ld. CIT(A) has passed the exparte order dated 04.01.2017 and in view of the fact that now the assessee has all the evidences/ documents in his possession to substantiate its case. In the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the AO for hearing on 08.01.2019 at 10.000 AM with the directions to decide the same afresh under the law and verify each and every paper/document, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee through his counsel is also directed to appear before the Assessing Officer on 08.01.2019 at 10.00 AM and file all the necessary documents/evidences, if any, to substantiate his case and fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment. Since the order has been 4 A.Y. 2012-13 SSMP Industry Ltd. pronounced, there is no need to send the notice to the assessee for hearing.
6. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.