PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

1. This appeal is filed against the order dated 6/12/2013 passed by CIT(A), XII, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2000-01.

2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) was incorrect and unjustified in 1. Dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

2. Dismissing the appeal of the assessee without deciding all Date of Hearing 17.10.2016 Date of Pronouncement 18.10.2016 grounds of appeal independently particularly grounds of appeal at S. N. 6-7-9 of the grounds taken before the CIT(A).

3. In holding that the CIT(A) was in agreement with the A.O in assessing the amount of Rs.264,94,000/- and Rs.72813/- on account of unexplained cash advance and interest income.

4. In confirming the additions made by the A.O in the asstt. Order without any reason and evidence.

5. In confirming the additions of Rs.26494000/- and Rs.72813/- of Rs.4500000/- made incorrectly by the A.O.

6. In dismissing the appeal and confirming the additions without considering the examining the various detailed huge submissions filed over a period of about 6 years on various dates before various CIT(A) at relevant point of time.

7. Dismissing the appeal in a hurried, manner without providing adequate opportunity.

3. Search action u/s 132 of Income-tax Act, 1961 was taken on 15/12/2004 in B. M. Gupta Group of cases which also included the case of M/s Varad Builders Pvt. Ltd., the assessee at 13/13A WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi. During the course of search various incriminating documents were found and seized. Apart from Rs.5,93,000/- was also found, out of which cash of Rs.5,70,000/- was seized. Since there was action u/s 132, notice u/s 153A of Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued on 13/6/2006 requiring the assessee to furnish return of income for the above block Assessment Year in respect of which the assessee company was assessable, within 16 days of the service of the said notice.

4. Since no return was filed by the assessee till 20/8/2006, notice u/s 142(1) along with detailed questionnaire based on the seized documents was issued on 21/8/2006 fixing the date of hearing on 6/9/2006. On 6/9/2006 Shri B. L. Gupta, Counsel for the assessee attended and on request the case was adjourned to 20/9/2006. On 20/9/2006 Shri B. L. gupta counsel for the assessee attended and filed a letter with details. Since in the above letter which was filed on 20/9/2006, the assessee submitted that return filed earlier may be treated to have been filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act, notice u/s 143(2) along with questionnaire with additional queries was issued on 6/10/2006 fixing the date of hearing on 12/10/2006. On 12/10/2006 Shri B. L. Gupta, Counsel for the assessee attended and filed a letter with enclosures. In this letter the assessee challenged the search in its case.

5. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.2,64,94,000/- on account of unexplained cash loan advances and Rs.72,813/- on account of unaccounted interest income. The Assessing Officer also made an addition on account of unexplained equity share capital for Rs.45 crores. The CIT(A) dismissed all the grounds without discussing the facts of the case. The assessee is before us.

6. The Ld. AR submitted that in the subsequent Assessment Year i.e. Assessment Year 2001-02, the ITAT, New Delhi Benches has remanded back the matter to the CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that

the CIT(A) has not cared to record the arguments advanced in support of the grounds raised. In the absence of any recording of the arguments, the independent reasoning of the CIT(A) in upholding the action of the A.O obviously is not available for judicial scrutiny. In the absence of the same, the conclusion arrived at is open to the challenge that the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeal with the pre- conceived notion that the grounds necessarily have to be dismissed. In the absence of any discussion on the arguments advanced by the assessee, Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee deserves to the allowed. The impugned order accordingly is set aside back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the same in accordance with law by way of a speaking order after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

7. Thus, the Ld. AR submitted that in this assessment year also the CIT (A) has not discussed any facts or has not taken any contentions raised by the Ld. AR. Thus, the CIT (A)s order has to be set aside.

8. The Ld. DR relied on the order of Assessing Officer and CIT (A).

9. We have heard both the parties. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has not at all discussed any factual aspect of the assessees case in fact there is no discussion on the submissions of the assessee/assessees representative. While arriving at the finding also, the CIT(A) has not given any particular reason as to why the Assessing Officer s order is just and proper. The order of the ITAT, New Delhi Benches in ITA No. 1531/Del/2014 Assessment Year 2001-02 passed on 24/7/2015 is also taken on record. In the said order the correctness of the order dated 6/12/2013 of CIT(A)- 12, New Delhi pertaining to Assessment Year 2001-02 was under challenge. The Tribunal has observed that the CIT(A) decided the appeal with the pre-conceived notion and there was no judicial scrutiny of the Assessing Officer s action. Thus, the appeal before us is also on the similar line. In light of this, the impugned order accordingly is set aside and the remanded back to the file of the A.O CIT(A) with the direction to decide the same in accordance with law by way of speaking order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. The order is pronounced in the open court on 18th of October, 2016.