DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PREMIER MEDICAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, VALSAD

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving relief to assessee on the basis of an incomplete remand report which got visible to CIT(A) due to a systemic glitch in the ITBA portal of the Income Tax Department?” 2. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, since relief to the assessee has been given on the basis of an incomplete remand report which got visible to CIT(A) due to a systemic glitch in the ITBA portal of the Income Tax Department, the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO of to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration?” 3. In this case, the assessee company filed original and subsequent revised income tax return. The case was selected for CASS complete scrutiny under National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) on the issue of Foreign Outward Remittance. The company is engaged in manufacturing of Rapid Diagnostic Test Kits. It was noted by the AO that during the year under consideration, the assessee had made huge amount of foreign remittances and the nature of the remittances made by the assessee was not explained. Despite several notices issued during assessment proceedings, it failed to submit any documentary evidence such as contract note, purchase bill, sale bill, invoices for verification of genuineness in support of such foreign remittances made. Considering no response from the assessee and failure on the part of the it to submit the basic details regarding such foreign remittances made, the nature, A.Y. 2020-21 Premier Medical Corporation Private Limited correctness and genuineness of such foreign remittances made was not established and without genuineness of foreign remittances same could not be allowed, hence the claim of expense on account of foreign remittances made of Rs. 76,42,89,640.40/- was held to be incorrect and without any proof. Further, the assessee had failed to deduct TDs on such remittances made. Hence, the expenditure claimed was treated as non-genuine and the same was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee of the year under consideration.

In the subsequent appeal before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted various additional evidences which were forwarded to the AO calling for a remand report. It is stated that the Remand Report was submitted on 18.07.2024 after due verification of the evidences by the AO. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made.