Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Senior Citizen Home Complex Welfare ... vs Acit, Meerut on 10 May, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH 'G' : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 3847 to 3854/Del/2011
Assessment Years: 1999-2000 to 2006-07
SENIOR CITIZEN HOME COMPLEX VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE
WELFARE SOCIETY, MEERUT
16-D, OLD SURVEY ROAD,
DEHRADUN,
UTTARANCHAL-248001
(PAN: AABCV0770E)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &
Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.
Revenue by : Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
The Assessee has filed these 08 Appeals against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut pertaining to assessment years 1999-2000 to 2006-07. Since the common grounds have been raised in all the appeals, except the difference in figure of addition, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 3847/Del/2011 (AY 1999-2000). The following grounds have been raised in assessment year 1999-2000:-
21. Declining to allow additional ground of appeal contesting the assessment framed as illegal, void ab-initio and without jurisdiction due to the following reasons;
a. That according to CIT(A) it was taken too late in the proceedings, even though, the fact is that there is no time limit under the Rules to file an additional ground;
b. That the appellant did not satisfy the condition that omission of such ground of appeal was not willful or unreasonable without CIT(A) giving any reasons even though the ground was purely legal;
2. Not holding that the assessment framed by the AO is illegal, void ab initio and without jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Vandana Verma in ITA No. 21/All/2009 dated 9.10.2009 since the assessment has been made in the individual name of the appellant even though the panchnama and hence search warrant was in the joint names of Senior Citizen Home Complex Welfare Society and Uppal Towers Pvt. Ltd.
3. In confirming the addition of Rs. 3,35,98,941/-
a) On account of estimated profit;
b) In declining to admit additional Evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act.3
c) In holding that books of accounts and vouchers were not produced before AO, even though the same have been in custody of department and quoted from at various stages of assessments/ appeals.
4. That the appellant craves lave to add or amend any or more of the grounds of Cross Objection as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise.
2. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
3. During the hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that ld. CIT(A) has declined to admit the additional ground by only holding that the ground taken too late during the appellate proceedings, and therefore, he was not satisfied that omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful or unreasonable, as a result, the additional ground was not admitted, without giving any reason even though the ground was purely legal one. Similarly, he further stated that while confirming the addition in dispute, he also declined to admit additional Evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act and wrongly held that that books of accounts and vouchers were not produced before AO, even though the same have been in custody of department and quoted from at various stages of assessments/ appeals. In view of the above, Ld. Counsel of the assessee requested that the issues in dispute may be set aside and sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration and with the directions to admit the additional ground, if any, and 4 also admit the additional evidence under Rule 46-A, to substantiate its case before him.
4. On the contrary, Ld. DR strongly opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the Ld. CIT(A).
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We have gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities as well as the contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. We find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that ld. CIT(A) has declined to admit the additional ground by only holding that the ground taken too late during the appellate proceedings, and therefore, he was not satisfied that omission of the ground from the form of appeal was not willful or unreasonable, as a result, the additional ground was not admitted, without giving any reason even though the ground was purely legal one and there is no such time limit under the Rules to file an additional ground, which is very essential for the determination of the issues in dispute and is purely a legal ground and did not require fresh facts which is to be investigated and goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice, all the issues in dispute are set aside and sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also admit the additional ground and decide the same as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We further find that Ld. CIT(A) with regard to admission of a valuation report as additional evidence, has held that it is too late during the appellate proceedings to bring 5 it on record as the Report is dated 19.4.2009, which is an afterthought and declined to admit the additional evidence under Rule 46A. However, in our considered opinion, the same is very essential to admit the same for the determination of the issue in dispute on merit. Hence, in the interest of justice, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the same u/R 46A and decide the issues in dispute afresh, as per law. It is made clear that the assessee should fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment and produce all the additional evidence before him to enable him to decide the issues in dispute, as per law.
6. In the result, all the 08 appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 10-05-2018.
Sd/- SD/-
(O.P. KANT) (H.S. SIDHU)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 10-05-2018
SR BHATANGAR
Copy forwarded to:
1.Appellant
2.Respondent
3.CIT
4.CIT(A), New Delhi.
5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.
AR, ITAT
NEW DELHI.