Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-1’ NEW DELHI
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & DR. B. R. R. KUMAR
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 30/09/2019 passed by CIT(A)- 42, New Delhi for assessment year 2015-16.
2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. “The Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 8,98,110/- to income returned by the appellant.
The Ld. CIT (A) erred in facts and in law in failing to appreciate appellant’s submission and in confirming additions on presumed
turnover made by the Ld AO without carrying out due enquiry required under the law.
That Ld AO erred in facts and in law in calculating net profit rate of 8.84% in ignorance of revised return filed by the appellant.
4. That Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law in failing to adjudicate the following ground taken before it by the appellant. “The Ld. AO erred in facts and in law by failing to state under what statuary provisions the impugned additions was made and tax is determined on appellant. ”
3. The assessee is engaged in the business of money landing and providing business support/financial services. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the assessee e-filed its return of income on 20/09/2015 declaring income of Rs. 3,60,130/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment vide notice u/s 143(2) dated 26/7/2016 by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) dated 11/1/2017 thereby making addition of Rs. 8,98,110/-on the undeclared receipts of Rs.1,01,59,619/- under the head income from business or profession and applied net profit rate of 8.84%.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has ignored the affidavit filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings thereby stating that due to inadvertent, the turnover in service tax returns had been wrongly declared at Rs. 1,76,24,352/- in place of actual turnover being Rs.74,64,733/-. The Ld. AR submitted that as per tax law, the service tax return cannot be revised after 60 days and thus, the assessee could not revise the said service tax returns. Therefore, the assessee could not revise the return of income filed before the Income Tax Department. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not carried out any enquiry and never tried to look into the account books and bank statement which demonstrated that the assessee’s claim is just & proper. The Assessing Officer simply proceeded to treat the difference in receipts as business turnover. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) also has not taken cognizance of this factual difficulty.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Prima facie it appears that there is a difference of service tax returns which was not properly verified by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are remanding back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication after taking cognizance of the evidence produced by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
In result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 29th Day of June, 2021.