ANURAG STEEL ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1602/HYD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 January 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided some basic details and that the CIT(A) confirmed additions despite the assessee's counsel requesting time to file material. In the interest of justice, the issue was remanded to the AO for de novo consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income and basic data. However, the AO made additions to the returned income, stating that the assessee failed to provide requested information like addresses and confirmation letters of loan creditors. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were justified when the assessee claimed to have provided basic information and requested time to furnish further details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B.Ramakotaiah

Hearing: 01.01.2018Pronounced: 10.01.2018

Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.

This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2012-13. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 7.10.2016 who confirmed the additions made by the AO on the ground that the assessee did not file the information called for by the AO even before her.

2.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income along with the audited report u/s 44AB for the relevant A.Y and also submitted the basic data such as books of account along with details of unsecured loan creditors and sundry creditors and other information was filed before the AO. It is submitted that the

Page 1 of 3

ITA No 1602 of 2016 Anurag Steel Enterprises Hyderabad.

assessee was asked to furnish the addresses and confirmation letters of the loan creditors along with their bank statements. It is submitted that the assessee submitted certain information but the AO, recording that the assessee has not filed the relevant information, added the same to the returned income of the assessee. He submitted that most of these amounts are brought forward balances of previous years and are not pertaining to the relevant A.Y. It is submitted that before the CIT (A), the assessee was represented by its Counsel, except for one day, when he could not appear due to various reasons and the CIT (A) has confirmed the assessment order. He submitted that the assessee has all the relevant material for completing the assessment. Therefore, he prayed that the issue may be remanded to the file of the AO for reconsideration on merits in accordance with law.

3.

The learned DR, however, submitted that sufficient opportunities were given to the assessee to file the relevant evidence before the AO as well as before the CIT (A) but the assessee has failed to do so and therefore, the matter need not be remanded to the file of the AO.

4.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has filed the basic details before the AO and even before the CIT (A), the AR of the assessee appeared on all the dates of hearing, except for one day. The CIT (A) however, has confirmed the additions observing that the assessee has failed to file the relevant data. We find that within a period of four months, the appeal of the assessee was rejected,

Page 2 of 3

ITA No 1602 of 2016 Anurag Steel Enterprises Hyderabad.

even though the assessee represented by its Counsel requested for time to file the relevant material. In view of the same, and in the interest of justice, to give the assessee another opportunity of submitting the details, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the AO for de novo consideration in accordance with law. The assessee should also cooperate with the AO by producing the relevant material. Needless to mention that the assessee should be given a fair opportunity of hearing.

5.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th January, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (B. Ramakotaiah) (P. Madhavi Devi) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Hyderabad, dated 10th January 2018. Vinodan/sps

Copy to:

1 M/s. Anurag Steel Enterprises, 15-9-29, Mukhtiyar Gunj, Hyderabad 500012 2 ITO Ward 7(3) Hyderabad 3 CIT (A) 3 Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT – 3, Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File

By Order

Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →