M/s. Silvercity Construction Ltd., Chandigarh v. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1350/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 135020114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAECS6968A
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 1350/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Silvercity Construction Ltd., Chandigarh
Respondent ACIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 16-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 16-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 16-02-2012
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 29-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1350 & 1351/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SILVERCITY CONSTRUCTION LTD. C/O M/S KHURANA VINEET & ASSOCIATES CAS SCO 63 2 ND FLOOR SECTOR 20-C CHANDIGARH. PAN : AAECS6968A VS. ACIT CIRCLE 8 (1) NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI NIRANJAN KOULI CIT DR & SHRI S. MOHANTHY DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1350/DE L/2010 RELATES TO QUANTUM AND ITA NO.1351/DEL/2010 RELATES T O CONCEALMENT PENALTY. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1350/DEL/2010 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID SERVICE OF MANDATORY NOTICE INTIMATING FIXATION OF THE AP PEAL INASMUCH AS NO NOTICE WAS EVER SERVED ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.35 AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THUS ILLEG AL. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION OF ITA NO.1350 & 1351/DEL/2010 2 RS.44 032/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLUB CONSTR UCTION EXPENSES WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.7 441/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTI ON OF RS.41 31 461/- AS AGAINST RS.65 28 916/- CLAIMED UND ER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS ARBITRARY OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS THUS UNTENABLE. ITA NO.1351/DEL/2010 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID SERVICE OF MANDATORY NOTICE INTIMATING FIXATION OF THE AP PEAL INASMUCH AS NO NOTICE WAS EVER SERVED ON THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.35 WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED AND UPHELD WITHOU T SUBSTANTIATING THE SPECIFIC CHARGE WHILE INITIATING THE PE NALTY WHETHER THE SAME HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALING PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND AS SUCH THE PENALTY IMPOSED MERITS DELETION. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPO SITION OF THE PENALTY OF RS.19 32 000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH IS ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS ARBITRARY OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF TH E CASE AND IS THUS UNTENABLE. 2. BOTH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) A RE EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN D ECIDED BY LEARNED CIT (A) ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND TH E PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. ITA NO.1350 & 1351/DEL/2010 3 3. THE LEARNED AR AT THE OUTSET REFERRING TO GROUN D NO.1 HAS PLEADED THAT IN FORM NO.35 IN COLUMN NO.14 THE AD DRESS ON WHICH THE NOTICE WAS REQUESTED TO BE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE IS MENTIONE D AS UNDER:- KHURANA VINEET & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SCO 63 SECTOR 20C CHANDIGARH. 3.1. SIMILARLY IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN COLUMN NO .1 ALSO THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS WERE SUBMITTED:- M/S SILVER CITY CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED LG-158 POCKET-40 C.R. PARK NEW DELHI. C/O KHURANA VINEET & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SCO 63 SECTOR 20C CHANDIGARH. 4. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOTICES HAVE BEEN SENT BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON THE ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING SHOULD B E SENT TO KHURANA VINEET & ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SCO 63 SECTOR 20C CHANDIGARH. THUS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FAIL URE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE NON-SERVICE OF NOT ICE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY LEARNED CIT (A). THUS IT WAS PLEADED THAT BOTH THE APPEALS SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THEM AFRESH AFTER GIV ING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL FULLY COOPERATE DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A). IT W AS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A DATE OF HEARING MAY ALSO BE GIVEN ON WHICH DATE TH E ASSESSEE WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT (A). ITA NO.1350 & 1351/DEL/2010 4 5. ON THE OTHER HAND RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IT WAS PLEADED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT ON ACCOUNT OF FAILUR E OF THE ASSESSEE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENTI ONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL. WE FIND THAT NOTICES HAVE NOT BEEN SENT TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.35. THEREFORE ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO RE STORE THESE MATTERS BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THESE APPEALS AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF HEARING. THEREFORE IT WAS DIRECTED TO THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF OR THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE WILL APPEAR BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE APPEALS ON 30 TH APRIL 2012. THE LEARNED AR HAD DULY NOTED THE SAID DATE TO APPEAR BEFORE LEA RNED CIT (A) ON WHICH DATE LEARNED CIT (A) WILL RE-ADJUDICATE THE I SSUE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. SINCE WE ARE RESTO RING BOTH THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) WE DO NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN CHALLENGED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. 7. IN THE RESULT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES BOTH THESE AP PEALS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.02.20 12. SD/- SD/- [K.D. RANJAN] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 16.02.2012. DK ITA NO.1350 & 1351/DEL/2010 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES