TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r disposal of the appeal Admittedly, the above additional evidences were not before authorities below to decide whether provisions of Section 194I or 194C would apply in the matter. Therefore, interest of justice requires that an opportunity should be given to the A.O. to examine these additional evidences and decide the issue as per Law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA.No.5602/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 17-12-2018 - SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate And Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, Dated 11.07.2018, for the A.Y. 2015-2016, on the following grounds : 1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) ] erred on facts and in law in upholding disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) in respect of payment of hotel accommodation expenses to the tune of ₹ 1,53,09,598. 2. That the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under section 194-1 of the Act without appreciating the fact that contracts with hotels do not guarantee any provision of rooms but such contracts only ensure room rate. 9. Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding estimated disallowance of ₹ 4,77,337 on the basis that in 50% of cases where payment is more than ₹ 30,000 but less than ₹ 1,00,000 for the entire year, payment of ₹ 30,000 could have been made in single instance. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of tour operation and travel related services in India. The assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, declaring loss of ₹ 2.59 crores. The A.O. passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, dated 26.12.2017 assessing the total loss at ₹ 6,09,166/- after making the following adjustments/disallowances : S. No. Summary of adjustments /disallowances Amount (in Rs.) i. Disallowance of ground arrangement reimbursement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stop sale communications, ledger extract and sample bills 135-157 10 Confirmation letter, hotel occupancy agreement dated 20/02/2014, stop sale communication, ledger extract and bill in respect of booking with Santiago Beach Resort, Goa 158- 163 11 Hotel occupancy agreement entered into with Shikara Beach resort dated 02/09/2014 along with stop sale communications, ledger extract and sample bills 158-163 12 Confirmation letter, stop sale communications, ledger extract and sample bill in respect of booking with Star of the Sea Resort, Goa 171-184 13 Email communications regarding fixing the rates, stop sale, ledger extract and sample bills in case of bookings with Trident group of hotels 185-194 4.1. It is submitted in the application that assessee is a tour operator, engaged in the business of travel related services to its customers travelling to India. In assessee s case for assessment year under appeal, disallowance of the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred Pvt. Ltd., 351 ITR 57 in which it was held as under : 13. The aforesaid case law clearly lays down a neat principle of law that discretion lies with the Tribunal to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice once the Tribunal affirms the opinion that doing so would be necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. This can be done even when application is filed by one of the parties to the appeal and it need not to be a suo motto action of the Tribunal. The aforesaid rule is made enabling the Tribunal to admit the additional evidence in its discretion if the Tribunal holds the view that such additional evidence would be necessary to do substantial justice in the matter. It is well settled that the procedure is handmade of justice and justice should not be allowed to be choked only because of some inadvertent error or omission on the part of one of the parties to lead evidence at the appropriate stage . Once it is found that the party intending to lead evidence before the Tribunal for the first time was prevented by sufficient cause to lead such an evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
