Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai.
Before: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned CIT(A)-33, Mumbai and it relates to A.Y. 2008-09. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,42,760/- made by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee.
Facts relating to the above said issue are stated in brief. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 9,41,620/- which was revised subsequently to Rs. 19,02,190/- The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income of Rs. 20,47,190/-. Subsequently the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed rent expenditure of Rs. 35,05,360/- paid to M/s. Heenjig Exports Pvt. Limited. However, in the rent agreement,
2 Shreeji Innova the rent was shown at Rs. 31,62,600/- only. Accordingly the Assessing Officer took the view that the excess rent payment was omitted to be disallowed, which constituted a mistake apparent from record in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO initiated rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act.
In the rectification proceedings, the assessee submitted that it had paid services tax of Rs. 3,42,760/- over and above the rent agreed to be paid as per rent agreement. The excess amount of rent pointed out by the AO actually represented Service tax component only. However, since the assessee did not furnish any document to support its claim, the Assessing Officer disallowed the difference amount of Rs. 3,42,760/-.
The assessee challenged the above said addition by filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and hence the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
The Learned AR submitted that the assessee could not furnish the details of payment of service tax before the Assessing Officer, since the staff who was looking after the matter had left the job. She further submitted that the assessee has furnished copies of certificate obtained from land lord along with copies of relevant challan for payment of Service tax, in the form of additional evidences before the Tribunal along with a petition under rule 29 of the I.T. Rules. Accordingly, she prayed that these additional evidences may be admitted and the matter may be restored to be file of the Assessing Officer for examining the same.
We heard learned DR and perused the record. We noticed that the Assessing Officer has made addition only for the reason that the assessee did not file evidence. With regard to the payment of service tax, which was 3 Shreeji Innova claimed to be reason for the difference between rental amount shown in the rent agreement and that was claimed in the return of income. It was stated that the said document could not be filed before the Assessing Officer, since the concerned staff had left the job. Since the claim of the assessee is supported by proper evidences, we admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee. Since the said documents were not verified by the Assessing Officer, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examining at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine the same afresh duly considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee. After affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Assessing Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 14.12.2023.