TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 610X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the orders of the authorities below - matter back on the file of the AO. - ITA No.2034/Del./2011 - - - Dated:- 25-5-2012 - SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, SHRI B.C. MEENA, JJ. Assessee by : Sh. B.K. Anand, CA Revenue by : Smt. Shumana Sen, Sr.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. This appeal of the department is against the order of the CIT (A)-XII, New Delhi dated 28.01.2011, relevant to assessment year 2007-08, whereby following two effective grounds have been raised: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law and merit of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.8,74,048/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of advertisement and publicity. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has concluded to delete the impugned addition by deciding the issue in favour of the assessee as per para. 4.2 of his order which reads as under: 4.2 The submission given by the appellant as well as the objections of the Assessing Officer have been considered and it is seen that the Assessing Officer has made the disallowance without enquiring into the genuineness of the payments made by the assessee to M/s P.R. Pandit, the Assessing Officer has also not enquired whether M/s P.R. Pandit has rendered any services to the appellant or not. No enquiry in this matter has been carried out. The appellant on the other hand had submitted the details on account of payments made to M/s P.R. Pandit Public Relations Officer and has also deduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of the assessee was not justified. Therefore, it was pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order of CIT(A) in this regard. 7. We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record and find that certain documents/evidence was found to have been furnished by the assessee before first appellate authority which has not only been admitted, but considered for allowing relief to the assessee which action of the CIT(A) cannot be said to be just and proper as it violates Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, inasmuch as first appellate authority has neither associated the Assessing Officer with appeal proceedings nor any remand report has been obtained. Therefore, in the interest of justice and to have fair play in the matter, we find i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: 5.2 The submissions given by the appellant as well as the objections of the Assessing Officer have been considered. The Assessing Officer has disallowed a sum of Rs/.41,28,145/- on an estimate basis on account of payment made to the holding company. However, he has not commented on the fact whether the holding company has actually rendered services to the appellant or not. The appellant has brought out this fact in its submissions before the Assessing Officer that both the assessee as well as holding company are having operational loss and there was no intention of transferring expenditure from one unit to another in order to avoid the tax liability as it was not there in both the cases. As the Assessing Officer has allowed 50% of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished before CIT(A), therefore, CIT(A) is justified in deleting the impugned addition, whose action being legally correct, needs further confirmation. It was pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order. 13. We have heard both the sides and considered the material on record as well as documentary evidence furnished before the Assessing Officer and other material furnished before CIT(A) as contained in the paper book filed by the assessee. From the index to paper book, it emerges that certain details and documents have been furnished/produced before CIT(A) in support of the appeal on this issue and CIT(A) has not only admitted such material, but also considered the same for granting relief to the assessee without associating the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|