MAHI GRANITES PVT. LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1416/HYD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 August 2021AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal. It rejected the ground related to the difference in export sales. The remaining issues regarding commission, donations, and travelling expenses were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 involved additions made by the Assessing Officer concerning export sales difference, commission, donations, and travelling expenditure. The assessee's audited books allegedly lacked a trial balance after a survey.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made on account of commission, donations, and travelling expenditure were justified without proper verification of the assessee's books, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2010-11 arises from the CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad’s order dated 14-09-2015 passed in case No.0046/2013-14/ACIT,Cir.16(2)/CIT(A)-4/Hyd/2015-16, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It transpires at the outset that this assessee’s instant appeal suffers from 01 day delay stated to be attributable to the reason(s) beyond its control as per the condonation petition/affidavit. No rebuttal has come from the departmental side. The impugned delay is condoned therefore.

3.

The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1.The Order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2.The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs.15,44,987/- made on account of difference in export sales. 3.The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs.50,805/- made on account of commission. 4.The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs.3,69,285/- made on account of donations. 5.The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the addition of Rs.84,02,283/- made on account of travelling expenditure. 6.Any other ground which the assessee may urge either at or before the date of hearing”.

4.

Learned counsel is fair enough in not pressing for the assessee’s first and foremost substantive grievance qua addition on account of difference in export sales. Rejected accordingly.

5.

Next comes the assessee’s third to fifth substantive grounds qua disallowance with the commission, donations and travelling expenses (supra). We notice at the outset with the able assistance of both the parties that the instant lis has emanated from a survey dt.11-11-2009 followed by the assessee’s alleged audited books wherein the learned lower authorities hold that there was no trial balance found. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to restore all the three instant remaining issues back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the entire factual verification afresh within three effective opportunities of hearing. The assessee undertakes to file all the necessary details; at its own risk and responsibility before the Assessing Officer on or before 30-11- 2021. Ordered accordingly.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →