Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-2’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER These appeals are filed by assessee against the separate orders dated 1.2.2016 and 30.9.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2010-11 respectively. Since the issues involved are common and identical, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with (AY 2011-12).
The ground raised in (AY 2011-12) read as under:-
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO in invoking provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and making an addition of Rs. 26,20,125/- to the returned income. The action being arbitrary, erroneous, unwarranted and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief.
The grounds raised in (AY 2010-11) read as under:-
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below erred in:
Disallowing a sum of Rs. 17,69,528/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act; 2. Rs. 7,91,800/- on account of interest paid on housing loan; 3. Reducing Long Term Capital Gain by Rs. 1,27,500/- and Rs. 66,256/- on account of transfer expenses and interest on delayed payments respectively. All the above action being arbitrary, erroneous, unwarranted and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief.”
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.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that Revenue authorities has not given sufficient opportunity to the assessee for substantiating its claim before them. He requested that the assessee is having all the necessary evidence which can be produced before the AO, if this Bench granted an opportunity to the assessee. He has filed in one Paper Book containing pages pages 1 to 9 having the copy of confirmation from Jitendra Sanghavi & Co. In the case of Reliance Capital Limited; Copy of confirmation from NSON & Co. In the case of Tata Capital Ltd; copy of confirmation from Gyanesh Gupta & Co. In the case of Indiabulls Financial Services Limited and copy of confirmation from Sarda and Pareek in the case of Tata Motors Finance Ltd. And in ITA No. 6316/Del/2015 filed Paper Book having pages 1 to 56 containing the Written submissions filed before the CIT(A) alongwith Audit Report with Annexures; 2nd written submissions filed before the CIT(A); 3rd written submissions filed before the CIT(A); copy of confirmation from Sarda & Pareek in the case of Tata Motors Finance Limited; copy of confirmation from Jitendra Sanghavi & Co. In the case of Reliance Capital Ltd; copy of confirmation from Gyanesha Gupta & Co. In the case of Indiabulls Financial Services Limited and copy of confirmation from NSON & Co. In the case of Tata Capital ltd.
On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and requested that the same may be upheld.
I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the orders passed by the authorities below as well as the Paper Books detailing the evidences/documents, I am of the view that the evidences produced by the assessee in the shape of Paper Books requires thorough examination at the level of the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, as per law, after considering all the documentary evidences/documents. However, the assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings before him and not to take any unnecessary adjournment in the case and also produce all the necessary evidences/documents before the AO to substantiate his claim.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.