M/S. R V SHELTERS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(5), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 849/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 December 2023AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, finding sufficient reason for its late submission. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in light of these documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against an order of the NFAC for AY 2017-18 was heard. The assessee had raised multiple grounds, including violations of natural justice and incorrect application of Section 68. Additional evidence was filed by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was justified, particularly concerning the applicability of Section 68 and the principles of natural justice. The admissibility and consideration of additional evidence were also key.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.R
For Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Hearing: 20.12.2023Pronounced: 20.12.2023

PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 1.9.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. The order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer ITO, Ward 7(2)(5), Bangalore), as upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre) is bad in law, in so far as not considering the contention of the Appellant, making the additions and the same is not in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and facts of the case.

2.

The impugned order/s is/are bad in law as proceedings have been concluded in violation of the principles of natural justice;

M/s. R.V. Shelters, Bengaluru Page 2 of 5 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in passing ex parte order without adjudicating on merits, the same being against the provisions of section 250(4) read with subsection (6) is bad in law and liable to be set aside;

4. The AO/CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for not submitting a response/details during the assessment proceedings.

5.

The Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in making, and the CIT(A) has erred in upholding, the addition of Rs.94,61,155/- to the total income;

6.

The Learned AO/CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the provisions of section 68 of the Act are not applicable to the facts in the present case;

7.

Without prejudice to the above, provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for opening balances;

8.

The additions made, without considering the documents available on records, are bad in law and liable to be deleted as it is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.

9.

The Learned CIT(A)/AO have erred in summarily dismissing the submissions of the Appellant, as already available on records, by stating that there is no submissions filed.

10.The impugned addition is liable to be quashed as it is high pitched and without understanding the facts of the case, without considering the submissions and is based on assumptions and surmises.

11.The Learned CIT(A)/AO have erred in invoking provisions of section 115BBE to tag. the total income of the Appellant; 12.Without prejudice, the interest levied u/s 234A and 234B of the Act requires to be waived off under the facts and circumstances of the case.

13.

The Appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify or amend any of the grounds of appeal during the course of the proceedings. (Total tax effect: Rs. 73,79,700/-)

M/s. R.V. Shelters, Bengaluru Page 3 of 5 2. The assessee has filed additional evidences along with petition and affidavit as follows: a) Financial statements RVSHELTERS FOR 2016-17 b) HELEN CHARLES – Ledger, confirmation & TDS Certificate c) CHARLES LEO D – Ledger, confirmation & TDS Certificate d) SUDARSHAN KUMAR – Ledger, confirmation & TDS certificate e) Copies of notices issued during assessment proceedings.

M/s. R.V. Shelters, Bengaluru Page 4 of 5 M/s. R.V. Shelters, Bengaluru Page 5 of 5 2.1 The assessee has submitted that due to improper representation before the lower authorities, assessee has been prevented from filing these documents on earlier occasion and prayed that these additional evidences may be admitted in the interest of justice.

3.

We have carefully gone through the submissions made by the assessee in its petition along with affidavit. We find that there is a good and sufficient reason in filing these additional evidences before us. Accordingly, these additional evidences are admitted for consideration. After admitting these additional evidences, we are of the opinion that lower authorities have no occasion to go through these documents and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to remit these additional evidences to the file of ld. AO to consider the grievance of the assessee in accordance with law. 3.1 Accordingly, the issue in dispute is remitted to the file of ld. AO for fresh consideration to decide in the light of additional evidences filed before us.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th Dec, 2023

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →