Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 arose against an order involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The issue concerned an alleged excess customs duty payment of Rs.1,18,214/-.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claimed payment of Rs.13,03,328/- was higher than the CBEC data of Rs.11,85,114/-. The assessee provided particulars of custom duty recipients and vouchers, which remained unrebutted by the Revenue.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged excess customs duty payment is sustainable when the assessee has provided unrebutted evidence.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rashmi Madan, 64, Block -D, Lajpat Nagar II, Ward-54(1), New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AGTPM7056R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajat Garg, CA Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 21.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 2, Chennai’s order dated 26.03.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075071884(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties herein involving the alleged excess customs duty payment of Rs.1,18,214/-, it emerges from a perusal of the case records that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s actual payment claim of Rs.13,03,328/- as more than that uploaded in the CBEC data to the tune of Rs.11,85,114/- respectively.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel has filed the assessee’s case records all along wherein she had given all the particulars of the custom duty recipients concerned along with corresponding vouchers and other details. All this evidence has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. This tribunal finds merit in the assessee’s sole substantive ground and directs the Assessing officer to delete the impugned addition. Ordered accordingly.