IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 1184/Del/2016 & 6316/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2010-11 JAI NARESH AGGARWAL, VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), PROP. MAHA LAXMI TRAVELS, Gurgaon 118A, PHASE-V, UDYOG VIHAR, GURGAON (PAN: ADNPA8846J) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing on : 05/10/2016 Order Pronounced on : 13/10/2016 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER These appeals are filed by assessee against separate orders dated 1.2.2016 and 30.9.2015 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-I, Gurgaon relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2010-11 respectively. Since issues involved are common and identical, hence, appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 1184/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12). 2. ground raised in ITA No. 1184/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) read as under:- 2 On facts and in circumstances of case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming action of AO in invoking provision of section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and making addition of Rs. 26,20,125/- to returned income. action being arbitrary, erroneous, unwarranted and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief. 3. grounds raised in ITA No. 6316/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) read as under:- On facts and in circumstances of case and in law authorities below erred in: 1. Disallowing sum of Rs. 17,69,528/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of Act; 2. Rs. 7,91,800/- on account of interest paid on housing loan; 3. Reducing Long Term Capital Gain by Rs. 1,27,500/- and Rs. 66,256/- on account of transfer expenses and interest on delayed payments respectively. All above action being arbitrary, erroneous, unwarranted and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief. 4. Facts narrated by revenue authorities are not disputed by both parties, hence, same are not repeated here for sake of convenience. 5. At time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of assessee has stated that Revenue authorities has not given sufficient opportunity to assessee for substantiating its claim before them. He requested that assessee is having all necessary evidence which can be 3 produced before AO, if this Bench granted opportunity to assessee. He has filed in ITA No. 1184/Del/2015 one Paper Book containing pages pages 1 to 9 having copy of confirmation from Jitendra Sanghavi & Co. In case of Reliance Capital Limited; Copy of confirmation from NSON & Co. In case of Tata Capital Ltd; copy of confirmation from Gyanesh Gupta & Co. In case of Indiabulls Financial Services Limited and copy of confirmation from Sarda and Pareek in case of Tata Motors Finance Ltd. And in ITA No. 6316/Del/2015 filed Paper Book having pages 1 to 56 containing Written submissions filed before CIT(A) alongwith Audit Report with Annexures; 2nd written submissions filed before CIT(A); 3rd written submissions filed before CIT(A); copy of confirmation from Sarda & Pareek in case of Tata Motors Finance Limited; copy of confirmation from Jitendra Sanghavi & Co. In case of Reliance Capital Ltd; copy of confirmation from Gyanesha Gupta & Co. In case of Indiabulls Financial Services Limited and copy of confirmation from NSON & Co. In case of Tata Capital ltd. 6. On contrary, Ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below and requested that same may be upheld. 7. I have heard both parties and carefully gone through orders passed by authorities below as well as Paper Books detailing evidences/documents, I am of view that evidences produced by assessee in shape of Paper Books requires 4 thorough examination at level of AO. Therefore, in interest of justice, I set aside issues in dispute to file of AO for fresh consideration, as per law, after considering all documentary evidences/documents. However, assessee is directed to fully cooperate with AO during proceedings before him and not to take any unnecessary adjournment in case and also produce all necessary evidences/documents before AO to substantiate his claim. 8. In result, both appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13/10/2016. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Date 13/10/2016 SRBHAT NAGAR Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches Jai Naresh Aggarwal v. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon