MURIGEPPA BANGARAPPA KABBUR,RANEBENNUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 HAVERI, HAVERI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 568/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 September 2023AY 2012-20134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the remand report submitted by the AO, which had granted significant relief. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions made to his income concerning differences in sundry creditors and debtors balances. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating no documents were submitted. However, the assessee argued a remand report from the AO had accepted most of the differences.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without appreciating the AO's remand report, and whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.R
Hearing: 25.09.2023Pronounced: 25.09.2023

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order passed by the NFAC Delhi dated 9.6.2023 DIN No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053800083(1) for the assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds of appeal: Ground No-1 :On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs.9,79,729/- on account of difference in balances of Sundry Creditors without appreciating the facts. Ground No-2:On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming addition of Its.12,86,143/- made on account of difference in balance of sundry creditors ignoring the report of Assessing Officer's Report vide F.No.65/Remand/AddlCIT/R-2/DVG/2019-20 addressed to theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wherein relief to extent of Rs.12.67,533/- is granted andthereby reducing additions to Rs.18,610/- as against Rs.12,86,143/-.

Murigeppa Bangarappa Kabbur, Ranebennur Page 2 of 4 Ground No-3:On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 47,572/- an account of difference in balances ofsundry debtors. Ground No-4: On the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have provided reasonable opportunity to the appellant to submitthe necessary evidences as against addition made in the assessment and ought to have considered the evidences and explanation already placed on the records in course of scrutiny assessment. Ground No-5: For these and other reasons and other grounds of appeal that may be raised in due course it is urged that the additions made as described above may be deleted and an opportunity may be provided to the appellant to substantiate his case as to get relief as against additions made in assessment.

2.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee has filed appeal against the assessment order passed on 30.3.2015 for making addition as per para nos.3, 3.1 & 3.2 of the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has not submitted any documents for substantiating as per the grounds of appeal

before him. Therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. A.R. submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has wrongly observed in his order that during appellate proceedings, a remand report was called for. The ld. AO vide its remand reportF.No.65/Remand/AddlCIT/R-2/DVG/2019-20 sustained only Rs.18,610/- and rest amount has been accepted by the ld. AO. However, the ld. CIT(A) has ignored these facts and mentioned in the order that no written submissions were filed by the assessee for pursuing his case is completely wrong. Accordingly, he requested that the matter may be sent back to the file of ld. AO for fresh verification with the differences noted by the ld. AO in confirming the accounts of the debtors’ and creditors’ balances and remand report submitted earlier.

3. The ld. D.R. relied on the order of lower authorities. Murigeppa Bangarappa Kabbur, Ranebennur Page 3 of 4

4. Considering the rival submissions, the AO has made addition on the differences observed during the course of assessment proceedings and not responding by the creditors for the notices issued by the ld. AO. However, during the appellate proceedings, it is clear from the grounds of appeal before the Tribunal that the ld. CIT(A) has called for the remand report from ld. AO, which has been submitted by the concerned ld. AO vide F.No.65/Remand/Addl.CIT/R- 2/DVG/2019-20 which has not been appreciated by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, it clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has not given proper appreciation during the appellate proceedings. As per the grounds of appeal in ground No.2 in the remand report, the ld. AO has given relief to the extent of Rs.12,67,533/-. Since during the course of hearing, the remand report was not available before me, therefore considering the entire issue, I think it fit to remit the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration as per grounds raised by the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce the necessary documents for substantiating its case except the issue involved in remand report. The assessee be given reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide the issue as per law.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th Sept, 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 →