KAMLESH MANOHAR KANUNGO,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had repeatedly noted incomplete books and discrepancies. To ensure a fair assessment, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the books.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the rejection of their books of account by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee claims to have provided complete books and vouchers, while the Revenue argues they were incomplete.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee's books of account were complete and properly examined by the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-47 Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 13/09/2022, for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Shri Rajkumar Singh appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the solitary issue raised in appeal by assessee is rejection of books of account of the assessee/appellant by the Assessing Officer. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts and documents on record has upheld the findings of Assessing Officer in rejecting books of account. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that the assessee had furnished complete set of books including ledger and invoices before the Assessing Officer, however, the Assessing Officer without examining the documents on record has erred in recording the fact that the assessee had furnished incomplete documents. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that the assessee had filed complete books including vouchers before the Tribunal in the form of Paper Book. The same documents were furnished before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee prayed for deleting the addition after examining the books.
Per contra, Shri Virabhadra Mahajan representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that the assessee had failed to furnish complete books of account despite repeated opportunities by the Assessing Officer. Since, the books submitted by the assessee were incomplete, the Assessing Officer had no other option except to reject the books and thereafter complete assessment in accordance with the provisions of section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’].
Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. We find that the Assessing Officer while framing assessment has time and again highlighted that the assessee has not filed complete set of books. The Assessing Officer has further highlighted certain discrepancies in the document/details furnished by the assessee. The assessee has field three volumes of paper book before the Tribunal. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee stated at Bar that these are complete set of books of account of the assessee for the relevant Assessment Year. The Paper Books also includes vouchers. These very documents were purportedly furnished before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). After taking into consideration entire facts, without commenting on the merits, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall make denovo assessment after examining the books of account furnished by the assessee compiled in three volumes of Paper Book furnished before the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer, if so desire may ask the assessee to produce original books/invoices, etc.
In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 31st day of January, 2023.
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026