RAJAT JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 58(2), NEW DELHI

At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned counsel that the above demand is mainly on account of addition of `22,13,525/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the assessee’s claim u/s 10(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. He stated that the assessee is a consultant and he received the consultancy charge

2 S.A.No.685/D/2017 & ITA-6985/D/2017 from Asian Development Bank which is claimed to be exempt u/s 10(8) of the Act. That the identical issue came up before the ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-14 and the ITAT, vide order dated 18th December, 2017 in set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. He submitted that since the facts are identical, the appeal itself can be decided by setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer or, alternatively, the stay may be granted and the appeal can be fixed for hearing at an early date.

Learned Senior DR, on the other hand, stated that if the matter is covered by the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-14, he has no objection for setting aside the same to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication in terms of ITAT’s direction for assessment year 2013-14.

After considering the submissions of both the sides and the facts of the case, we set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2009-10 i.e., the year under appeal before us with the direction to readjudicate the issue raised before us as per the direction/observation of the ITAT in assessment year 2013-14. Needless to mention that Assessing Officer will allow adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter will pass an order afresh in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes.

Since the appeal itself has been adjudicated, the stay petition filed by the assessee has become infructuous and the same is dismissed accordingly.

In the result, the stay application is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 22.12.2017.