ADMAN ADVERTISING,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi dated 28.12.2015 pertaining to AY 2010- 11.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,95,942/- on account of mismatch of TDS as per AIR Information and as per the claim of the assessee.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of notice we decided to proceed ex parte. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of advertising. The I.T.A.No.1041/Del/2016/A.Y.2010-11 return for the year under consideration was selected for scrutiny assessment and accordingly statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee.

During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to reconcile the difference between the AIR Information and income shown in its books of account. The assessee filed a detailed reply. In its reply the assessee contended that it has no means available to ascertain, if no TDS certificate has been issued by the deductor. The assessee contended that the difference can only be ascertained once the detailed copy of account of the assessee as appearing in the books of the deductor is made available to the assessee for reconciliation. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO who proceeded by adding the difference of amount as per AIR Information and amount as per books of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 5,95,942/-.

Assessee assailed the addition before the CIT(A) but without any success.

We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. In our considered opinion, the AO ought to have given sufficient opportunity to the assessee to reconcile the difference. In our considered opinion, merely because the figures shown in AIR

In the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and the assessee is directed to reconcile the difference to the satisfaction of the AO.

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.