DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. CONCORD DRUGS LIMITED, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in both parties' arguments, acknowledging that the CIT(A) lacked the power to remand the matter directly to the AO. The Tribunal also noted that the AO was deprived of an opportunity to examine fresh evidence admitted by the CIT(A). Therefore, the entire matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order which had set aside an addition related to purchases and deleted a disallowance under Section 40A(3). The CIT(A) had remitted the issue of bogus purchases back to the AO without obtaining a remand report, and admitted fresh evidence for the Section 40A(3) disallowance without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) had the power to remit the matter back to the AO and if fresh evidence was admitted without proper procedure, thereby depriving the AO of an opportunity to examine it.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0188/CIT(A)-1,Hyd/2016-17/2017- 18, dated 26/02/2018 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2014-15.
The Revenue has raised six grounds in its appeal, and they are extracted herein below for reference:
“(i) The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on the facts as well as in law.
(ii) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in setting aside the addition of Rs. 10,18,19,329/- made in respect of purchases. (iii) The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have set aside the addition of Rs. 10,18,19,329/- in contravention of provisions of section 251(1)(a). (iv) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14,28,107/- made by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the IT Act. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have provided an opportunity to the Assessing Officer as required under Rule 46A of the IT Rules before admitting additional evidence in the form of bills and vouchers. (vi) The appeal craves leave to add, delete, substitute and amend any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A) had remitted the issue with respect to bogus purchases back to the file of Ld. AO for verification. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) does not have power to remit back the matter to the file of Ld. AO instead, he ought to have obtain remand report from the Ld. AO and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merit. The Ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld. AR however, he vehemently argued the Ld. CIT (A) had deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO towards disallowance of cash payments U/s. 40A(3) of the Act based on fresh evidence produced before him. The Ld. DR therefore submitted that the entire matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo consideration.
4. After hearing both the parties, we find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR as well as the Ld. DR since the Ld. CIT (A) does not have the power to remand the matter to the file of Ld. AO as per section 250 of the Act and further the Ld. CIT (A) has adjudicated the issue with respect to disallowance of expenditure on account of cash payments U/s. 40A(3) of the Act based on fresh evidence produced before him thereby depriving the Ld. AO of an opportunity to examine those evidence produced before the Ld. CIT (A). Considering these facts and circumstances of the case and the grievance of both the parties, in the interest of justice, invoking our powers under the Act, we hereby remit the entire matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh consideration.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.
Pronounced in the open Court on 29th November, 2021.
More judgments on Section 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026