TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not sustainable. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) has also not properly considered the submissions and facts of the case and simply followed the AO s conclusion and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. We further note that the CIT(A) too has not given due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.DR has supported the order of the CIT(A). However, he raised no serious objection if the appeal is restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication of first appeal - restore the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all the three appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication - Appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 117 to 119/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2016 - SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of above submissions, at the outset, from the copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 9.1.2014, passed in the cases of Shri Anish Kumar Gupta and Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta in ITA Nos. 120 to 121/Del/2013 and 112 to 114/Del/2013 for ay 2007-08 to 2009-10 [supra] as relied upon by the ld. AR of the present assessee, we observe that in the appeal of Shri Anish Kumar Gupta, the issue is restored to the file of the AO with the following observations: 13. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The stand of the assessee is that he has entered into an agreement with M/s. Reliance Industries for providing certain services on a monthly payment of ₹ 10,000 plus reimbursement of the actual expendit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, learned Assessing Officer has misguided himself in examining this issue in the hands of the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer can examine veracity of assessee s claims with regard to the balance amount i.e. the difference between ₹ 378,93,277 minus ₹ 3,71,525 and ₹ 340,66,623 minus ₹ 333,41,778. How the total amount can be added in the hands of the assessee is not ascertainable in the assessment order. The confirmation of Reliance Industries is available on pages 53 and 63 of the paper book. We have gone through these documents. This issue is also set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. Learned Assessing Officer shall keep in mind that simila ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts with regard to these grounds are that Shri Ashish Gupta was running a proprietorship concern, namely, Arnav Lisioning Services . He entered into an agreement with Reliance Industries Ltd. on 5th day of April 2006 for providing consultancy services. The Reliance Industries supposed to pay consultancy fee of ₹ 15,000 per month. According to the assessee, he has received a sum of ₹ 283,83,450 from Reliance Industries Ltd. towards expenditure in assessment year 2007-08. The assessee had incurred a sum of ₹ 276,98,340. In its confirmation, Reliance Industries has confirmed that this much amount was towards reimbursement of expenditure. Learned Assessing Officer has made analysis of these expenses under various heads and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment of ₹ 46,08,774 on protective basis. He worked out this amount by debiting a sum of ₹ 1,80,000 claimed by the assessee as consultancy charges from the total amount paid by the Reliance Industries Ltd. in this year. 18. The facts are similar to that of Shri Anish Kumar Gupta as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this order. Learned Assessing Officer in two assessment years i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 himself has observed that the alleged receipts from the Reliance Industries is to be assessed on protective basis in the hands of the assessee, then how he can made addition on substantive basis in assessment year 2007-08. We have set aside this also to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication in the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided the issue in haste by passing a cryptic order which is not sustainable. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) has also not properly considered the submissions and facts of the case and simply followed the AO s conclusion and dismissed the appeals of the assessee. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) too has not given due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. DR has supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). However, he raised no serious objection if the appeal is restored to the file of AO for fresh adjudication of first appeal. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all the three appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. Needless to mention th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
