Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
The appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 07.01.2016 of CIT(A)-1, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No. 365/2014-15 arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 27.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the “Ld. AO”).
M/s. Aravali Infrapower ltd. 2
Heard and perused the record.
On hearing, the Ld. Representatives of both the sides it comes up that Ld. CIT(A) has primarily allowed the appeal of assessee as the Assessing Officer failed to provide relevant information of the fact as to on which entities or other assessee substantive additions were made so as to justify the protective additions in the hands of assessee. Ld. DR submitted that the Revenue is trying to collect the relevant information in that regard and the information received so far is not sufficient to assist the Bench and provide information if substantive evidence were made in the hands of any other entity or assessee.
The record shows this aspect has been considered by the Bench on 19th 4. January, 2022 and following order was passed;
“When the appeal was called out, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the report regarding the status of substantive addition made in case of three other entities has not yet been received from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he requested for adjourning the matter. Opposing such request, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, even, till the date of disposal of appeal by learned CIT (Appeals) on 07.01.2016, the Assessing Officer had not furnished any information regarding the status of substantive addition made in case of other entities and learned CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal had taken note of this fact. After considering the submissions of the parties, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the Revenue to obtain the report from the Assessing Officer regarding the status of substantive addition made in case of other entities. In case, the requisite report from the Assessing Officer is not obtained by the next date of hearing, the appeal is liable to be decided on its own merits. Appeal stands adjourned to 09.03.2022. Both parties informed.”
M/s. Aravali Infrapower ltd. 3 4.1 Thereafter appeal was listed on 09/03/22 and 02/06/22 but matter was not heard and thereafter when on 08/09/22 the appeal was listed for hearing again Ld. DR sought adjournment on the basis that report sought from the AO is not received and the Bench had passed following order;
“When the appeal was called out, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the report regarding the status of substantive addition made in case of three other entities has not yet been received from the Assessing Officer. Ld. DR states that a letter is written to the Assessing Officer in the month of March, 2022 and response is awaited. Therefore, he requested for adjourning the matter. Opposing such request, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, even, till the date of disposal of appeal by learned CIT (Appeals) on 07.01.2016, the Assessing Officer had not furnished any information regarding the status of substantive addition made in case of other entities and learned CIT(A) while disposing of the appeal had taken note of this fact. Ld. A.R. submitted that this fact was also taken note by the bench when the appeal came up for hearing on 19/01/2022. After considering the submissions of the parties, we are inclined to grant final opportunity to the Revenue to obtain the report from the Assessing Officer regarding the status of substantive addition made in case of other entities. In case, the requisite report from the Assessing Officer is not obtained by the next date of hearing, the appeal is liable to be decided on its own merits. Appeal stands adjourned to 14.12.2022. Both parties informed.”
4.2 The appeal was then listed on 14/12/22, 14/03/22 and 05/06/23. Again on same ground the adjournment is sought today . The Bench is of firm view that no further opportunity is justifiable.
Now, from a perusal of the record of proceedings, it is evident that the position noticed by the CIT(A) namely the failure of the Assessing Officer to identify cases where the corresponding substantive addition has been made,
M/s. Aravali Infrapower ltd. 4 continues to prevail before us also. Inspite of providing sufficient opportunities, the Revenue has not come forwarded to provide the details, thus, the conclusion drawn by CIT(A) is liable to be affirmed. We hold so. In fact, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue before us also do not contain even an averment that substantive addition correspondingly has been made in the hands of any other assessee.
6. Be that as it may, for all the foregoing reasons, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed with the liberty that if in reasonable time, Revenue can collect relevant information to establish substantive additions in the hands of any other assessee, the Revenue can seek the restoration of this appeal in accordance with law.