Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 November, 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIG ARH BENCH ' A', CHANDIG ARH
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH S AINI, JUDICI AL MEMBER AND
SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 974/Chd/2013
Assessment Years : 2007-08
A.C.I.T. Circle 1(1) V Chandigarh Housing Board
Chandigarh 8, Jan Marg, Sector 9
Chandigarh
AAALC 0132H
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri Manjit Singh
Respondent by: S/Shri Ravi Shankar & Rohit Kaura
Date of hearing 17.11.2014
Date of Pronouncement 19.11.2014
O R D E R
PER T.R. SOOD, A.M
This appeal is directed against the order of Ld CIT(A), Chandigarh dated 17.7.2013.
2. In this appeal the revenue has raised the following grounds:
"1 The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law.
2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,97,28,435/- which was made by the Assessing officer on account of accrued interest on the funds relation to conversion fee ignoring that.
2.1 The assessee has failed to establish beyond doubt that there was principal - agent relationship between Chandigarh Administration and it.
2.2 Chandigarh Housing Board is an independent entity having the status of artificial judicial person under the IT Act.
3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has comes admitting additional evidence as it had relied upon some documents filed by the "A" before it, which were neither filed before the Assessing officer during assessment proceedings nor the Ld. CIT(A) sent it to the Assessing officer for comments as per rule 46A of IT Rules before admitting the same."
3 After hearing both the parties we find that this issue has traveled to the Tribunal earlier also and the matter was set 2 aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration. During fresh proceedings the assessee filed a copy of notification No. 28/8/51-UTFI(3-2005)/6658 dated 19.9.2005. 4 After considering this notification and other contentions, the Ld. CIT(A) decided this issue in favour of the assessee. 5 Before us, the Ld. DR for the revenue mainly contended that the Tribunal has given specific direction that opportunity should be given to both the parties. The Ld. CIT(A) admitted the fresh evidence in the form said notification and no opportunity was given to the Assessing officer. Therefore the matter requires reexamination or alternately relief could not have been given without affording opportunity to the department.
6 On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee admitted that no opportunity has been given to the department and therefore he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the file of Ld. CIT(A).
7 After considering the rival submissions we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has himself reproduced operating para of order of the Tribunal in ITAs No. 1075 & 1198/Chd/2010 which reads as under:
"W e have heard both the parties and cons idered their s ubm iss ions . Perusal of para 34 of the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) th shows that a letter dated 29 Oct 2009 was filed by the assessee before her in which details of FDRs relating to conversion of industrial plots into commercial plots were given as per which FDRs for a sum of Rs. 54,68,48,520/- were taken by the assessee. The aforesaid letter was perceived by the Ld. CIT(A) as supporting the claim of the assessee that it was an agent of the Chandigarh Administration in this behalf. Mere furnishing of details of FDRs or interest thereon is not, in our view, sufficient to establish principal agent relationship. The Ld. CIT(A) has not referred to any document to su8pport her finding except the letter referred to above. According to her, the Assessing officer has not demolished the claim of the assessee that it was acting as agent of the Chandigarh Administration. It was the assessee who was claiming to be an agent of the Chandigarh Administration and therefore the burden lay on it to prove it. There is no reference to any such evidence in the entire order of the Ld. CIT(A). Principal agent 3 relationship cannot be accepted unless relevant evidence is brought on record to establish such a relationship. Mere assertion that the assessee was acting as agent of the Chandigarh Administration is not sufficient. In this view of the matter, the o rd er passed b y the Ld . CIT ( A) in th is b eh alf is set asid e an d the matter is restored to him for a fresh decision in the matter in conformity with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Ground No. 1 is treated as allowed with the aforesaid observations."
From the highlighted portion, it becomes clear that specific direction was given to decide the issue afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties. Therefore we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to his file with specific direction that the Assessing officer should be given opportunity to canvass the view of the department and issue should be decided only after considering the submissions of both the parties.
8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.11.2014 Sd/- Sd/-
(BHAVNESH S AI NI) (T.R. SOOD)
JUDICI AL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 19.11.2014
SURESH
Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT/The CIT(A)/The DR