RAMESH JETHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-35(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1115/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2023AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the issue back to the AO. The AO was directed to reconsider the matter afresh in light of the assessee's submissions and documents, and provide an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) received AIR information indicating a mismatch in custom duty paid as per the Income Tax Return (ITR) and import-export data. The AO added the difference of Rs. 67,89,421/- to the assessee's income. The assessee contended that custom duty was included in the purchase value and sought to provide additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional documents and not remanding the case to the AO for proper verification of the custom duty difference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.02.2023

Date of Hearing : 15.02.2023 Date of Order : 20.02.2023 ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-12, New Delhi dated 08.10.2018 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That under the fact and circumstance, Ld. A.O. as well as Ld. CIT (A) erred in law in passing and sustaining order u/s. 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. ./2022

2. That under the fact and circumstance, Ld. CIT (A) erred in law in not quashing the Asstt. Order since reasonable opportunity of being heard not provided by Ld. A.O. and passed ex-parte Asstt. order.

3. That under the fact & circumstance, Ld. CIT (A) erred in law in not admitting Additional documents/evidences under Rule 46A.

4. That under the fact and circumstance, Ld. A.O. as well as Ld. CIT (A) erred in law in making and sustaining addition of Rs.67,89,421/- being difference between custom duty paid as per ITR & AIR information.”

2.

Brief facts of the case are that AO in this case received AIR information that there was a mismatch of custom duty between the ITR and the data received from the export-import. According to AO, assessee despite opportunity did not file the details. Hence, AO added the custom duty amounting to Rs.67,89,421/- under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').

3.

Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee submitted that custom duty paid against the import of goods was included in the purchase value. Assessee also referred to the accounting standards issued by ICAI whereby all the import custom duty and taxes are to be included in the purchase value.

Assessee requested that the matter should be remanded back to the AO for proper explanation and the submission of the documents. However, ld. CIT (A) did not agree for the above proposition. He rejected the submission of the additional evidences and confirmed the AO’s action. the issue by hearing the ld. DR for the Revenue and perusing the records.

5.

We note that assessee had furnished additional evidences before the ld. CIT (A) and requested that an opportunity be given to explain the issue with submissions and documents before the AO. Ld. CIT (A) has rejected this request. In our considered view, interest of justice would be served if the issue is remanded to the file of AO. AO is directed to consider the issue afresh in the light of the submissions made and documents placed by the assessee. Needless to add, assessee should be provided an opportunity of being heard.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →