Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-4 - 2020-LL-0117-65

Citation	2020-LL-0117-65
Appellant Name	Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name	The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-4
Court	HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	17/01/2020
Assessment Year	2000-01
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	identity and creditworthiness • genuineness of transaction • opportunity of being heard
Bot Summary:	The appellant assessee has preferred these appeals to assail the common order dated 16.06.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: C , New Delhi in ITA Nos. In view of the contradictory claims regarding the filing of documentary evidences in support of identity and creditworthiness of the payers and genuineness of the transaction, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the merits of the issue of addition under Section 68 of the Act afresh with the direction to the assessee to produce all the documents before the Assessing Officer. The order further permitted the Assessing Officer to carry out enquiries which are deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including inquiries from the banks of parties transacted. In terms of the impugned order, the Assessing Officer has passed assessment orders dated 13.11.2018, and 16.12.2016. Since these appeals were preferred belatedly, the said orders also form part of our record. Mr. Santhanam, learned counsel for the appellant states that the Assessing Officer has not considered the submissions advanced by the assessee before him and statutory appeals have already been preferred before the CIT, which are still pending. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the CIT to deal with all grounds raised by the appellant while deciding the said appeals, except those issues which have been concluded by impugned decision of the ITAT. 5.

$ 1 & 2. *IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 157/2019 + ITA 167/2019 HOPEWIN ADMARK & CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD. Appellant Through: Mr. R. Santhanam and Mr. Rishabh Ostwal, Advocates. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI -4, Respondent Through: Mr. Raghvendra Singh and Ms. Easha Kadian, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ORDER % 17.01.2020 1. appellant assessee has preferred these appeals to assail common order dated 16.06.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: C , New Delhi in ITA Nos. 3777/Del/2010 and 1720/Del/2012 in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 respectively. 2. Tribunal by common order decided certain issues raised before it by assessee. However, in view of contradictory claims regarding filing of documentary evidences in support of identity and creditworthiness of payers and genuineness of transaction, in interest of justice, Tribunal restored issue to file of Assessing Officer for deciding merits of issue of addition under Section 68 of Act afresh with direction to assessee to produce all documents before Assessing Officer. order further permitted Assessing Officer to carry out enquiries which are deemed fit in facts and circumstances of case, including inquiries from banks of parties transacted. assessee was to be afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing. In terms of impugned order, Assessing Officer has passed assessment orders dated 13.11.2018 (in respect of Assessment Year 2000-01), and 16.12.2016 (in respect of Assessment Year 2001-02). Since these appeals were preferred belatedly, said orders also form part of our record. 3. Mr. Santhanam, learned counsel for appellant states that Assessing Officer has not considered submissions advanced by assessee before him and statutory appeals have already been preferred before CIT (A), which are still pending. He states that assessee would be satisfied if Court were to issue directions to CIT (A) to deal with all grounds raised by assessee in its statutory appeals in respect of aforesaid two assessment orders. 4. appeals are, accordingly, disposed of with direction to CIT (A) to deal with all grounds raised by appellant while deciding said appeals, except those issues which have been concluded by impugned decision of ITAT. 5. Dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANJEEV NARULA, J JANUARY 17, 2020 kd Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-4

Metadata

Judgment