ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SANDUR BYPASS PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2019 in ITA No. 330/Del/2017 on account of low tax effect. This appeal of Revenue figured at Sr. no. 88 of the list in the said order. Subsequently, on a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) filed by the Department, the appeal was recalled by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.12.2023 in M.A. No. 71/Del/2020, wherein it was noted that the tax effect in this case was Rs. 89,42,259/-. 3. Brief facts of the case: The Assessee filed its return of income declaring NIL income on 20.12.2006. Search & Seizure operations were carried on 28.08.2012 on DSC Group including the assessee. The group during the year was engaged in the infrastructural development in India and abroad and carried its operation on BOT (Build Operate & Transfer) basis. The AO noted that the search operations were carried as the group was involved in heavy cross border transactions and funds have been channelized from the entities registered in abroad. This case was centralized with central circle- 14 by an order u/s 127 of the Act, vide CIT-III/Delhi/Cent./2013- 14/250 Dt. 23.04.2013. Notice under section 153 A was issued to the assessee on 04.06.2014. Vide letter dated 08.07.2014, assessee replied that the return filed on 29.09.2011 u/s 139 of the Act be deemed to be the return in compliance of notice u/s 153A of the Act. 3.1 The AO noted that the assessee remained non-compliant during the assessment proceedings and filed its submissions in the DAK on 12.03.2015, in ITA No.- 1974/Del/2017

Aggrieved with the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds of appeal: “ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the AO could not have proceeded to frame assessment u/s 153A of the Act as no incriminating documents/assets were found during the search without appreciating that the provision of section 153A of the Act does not stipulates any such conditionality.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee without independently verifying the facts of the case, being a fact finding authority as mandated by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jansampark Advertising.

The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the Rs.8,83,058/- by reworking the amount of amortization for Rs.92,45,263 as against Rs. 1,01,28,321/-addition of phase II at addition of 4. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the Rs.43.66.334/- by reworking the amount of amortization for Phase-1 at Rs.1,21,91,408/- as against Rs. 1,65,57,742/-.

The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.7,53,28/- on account of non producing of bills for fixed assets.

The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,23,174 by disallowing 50% of legal & Professional debited to Profit & Loss account.

The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,93,95,528/- by disallowing 50% of interest on term loan debited to Profit & Loss account.

The CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.5,93,200/- by disallowing 25% of watch & ward debited to Profit & Loss account.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

The Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that this is a case of abated assessment and, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment proceedings in this case for the reason as stated by him. The Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the assessment order and the grounds of appeal, in respect of the merits of the disallowances made in the assessment order. 7. The Ld. AR did not object to the above submission of the Ld. CIT(DR) that it was an abated assessment. However, he submitted that the assessee had filed relevant details vide letter dated 12.03.2015 which were not examined properly by the AO. In this regard, the assessee referred to the submissions made on page 5 to 14 of the paper book filed by the assessee in which various details in respect of which disallowances were made by the AO were filed before the AO which were not properly examined by the AO. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has made submissions on merits in respect of ground nos. 3 to 9 filed by the Revenue. In view of these facts, the Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh verification. 8. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In this regard, the factual date-sheet chart submitted by the assessee is reproduced as under:

1. The Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the present assessment year is an abated assessment year which was not objected by Ld. AR of the assessee. After noting the above sequence of the events, it is held that it is an abated assessment and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order for the reasons as discussed by him and summarized in above in para no. 4 of this order. We, therefore, allow the ground no. 1 of the appeal filed by the Revenue. 9. As noted above, the assessee did not appear before the AO and only filed written submissions, and the disallowances made by the AO were also not adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice and to give one