MINHAJUDDIN MOHAMMED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 826/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 September 2020AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that if the assessee's claim of double booking was true, sustaining the addition would be a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an addition of Rs. 14,14,000/- made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) as bogus purchases. The assessee claimed the purchases were mistakenly booked twice, leading to a discrepancy.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for bogus purchases was justified, and if the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify the alleged double booking of purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Shri Tejprakash Toshniwal
For Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Hearing: 07/09/2020Pronounced: 07/09/2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Minhajuddin Mohammed, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-5(3), PAN: AQQPM 6713 Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Tejprakash Toshniwal Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 07/09/2020 Date of pronouncement: 07/09/2020 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal No. 0567/14-15/ITO, Wd. 5(3)/CIT(A)- 4/Hyd/16-17, dated 22/2/2017 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AY 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeal however, the crux of the issue is that the ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the ld. AO Rs. 14,14,000/- by stating it to be bogus purchases.

3.

At the outset, the ld. AR submitted before me that the assessee had mistakenly booked the purchases amounting to Rs. 14,14,000/- twice in his books of accounts due to which the discrepancy arose when it came to reconciliation of the sundry creditors. The Ld. AR further submitted at if the entries are rectified and the closing stock is consequently reduced then the addition made and sustained by the Ld. Revenue Authorities may not be warranted. It was therefore pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Ld. AO in order to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate his case. The Ld. DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submissions of the Ld. AR.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record and I am of the view that if the statement made by the Ld. AR happens to be true then it will be a miscarriage of justice for sustaining the addition made by the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice I hereby remit back the matter to the file of the Ld. AO in order to examine and appreciate the facts of the case thoroughly and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law and merit after providing proper opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

5.

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

Pronounced in the open Court on 07th September, 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →