QUINTEGRA SOLUTIONS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Chennai vide order No.ITA No.81/17-18/A-3, dated 30.08.2018. The assessment was framed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-5(2), Chennai for the Assessment Year 2015 – 2016 u/s.143(3) of the Income

At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is time bared by limitation by 18 days and the Assessee has filed a condonation petition stating the reason that the delay in filing the appeal was not willful. The delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was due to the Appellant had submitted Form No.36 [Old & New] in which the date was wrongly mentioned inadvertently and due to which the circumstances was beyond the control of the Assessee to communicate well in time and hence the delay and requested the Bench to condone the delay. On going through the affidavit filed by the Assessee, we noted that the reason stated by the Assessee seems reasonable. Hence, we condone the delay of 18 days and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

The Assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal that are as under: [1] The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Chennai dated 30.08.2018 in for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case. [2] The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.8,69,471/- representing the sundry credit in the name of M/s. BCD Travel India Private Limited on the application of Section 68 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. [3] The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act have no application to the facts of the case and further ought to have appreciated that the discharge of the initial onus cast upon the Appellant thus vitiating his action in sustaining the addition in the computation of taxable total income. [4] The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the rejection of the explanation offered by the Appellant supported by material evidences to question the correctness of the additions made u/s.68 of the Act in the computation of taxable total income was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law. [5] The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in para 4.7 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification. [6] The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice would be nullity in law.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR at the outset submitted that alleged sum of addition under the head of :: 6 :: I.T.A No.:3130/CHNY/2018 sundry creditor Rs. 8,69,471/- being amount payable to M/s. BCD Travel India Pvt Ltd was written off by the appellant assessee in the assessment year 2016-17 and same was offered to tax while computing the taxable income for the said assessment year and thereby it would be amounting to double taxation of the said sum and ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that double taxation would go against the charging provision of the Act and having not examined the subsequent assessment years return of income independently, the mechanical addition shall fall to the ground and accordingly alleged addition made by AO may be deleted.

On the other hand ld. DR relied on the order(s) passed by the authority below.

We, after hearing the rival submissions of the party and material available on record, we find force in the contention of the appellant/assessee. However, in the interest of justice remand back to the file of AO to decide whole issue

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