M/S PKM METAL BUILDINGS COMPANY PRIVATE LMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE-5(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 427/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 April 2023AY 2018-192 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, which had a material bearing on the issue. The Tribunal directed the AO to examine these evidences and re-adjudicate the matter after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's turnover was added based on a difference in 26AS information. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition because the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to substantiate its turnover and whether additional evidence should be admitted at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM, & HON’BLE SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 07-02-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act on 29-09-2021. In the assessment order, the assessee was saddled with certain addition of turnover based on difference in 26AS information. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same on the ground that the assessee

2 - did not furnish sufficient evidences to substantiate its grounds of appeal

. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2. Before us, Ld. AR has filed petition under Rule 29 pleading for admission of additional evidences. The Ld AR also placed on record a detailed chart reconciling the differences. The Ld. Sr. DR opposed admission of additional evidences at this stage.

3. We find that the only reason for impugned additions was the fact that the assessee could not furnish sufficient evidences before lower authorities. The additional evidences furnished before us would have material bearing on the impugned issue. Considering the same, we admit the same and direct Ld. AO to examine the same and re- adjudicate the impugned issues after affording opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its claim.

4. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 26th April, 2023.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →