MARSHAL SECURITY & DETECTIVES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-16(2), NEW DELHI

The nature of the Business of the company is supply of security persons to various Individuals and companies during the year under consideration. The assessee has shown in his Return of Income total receipt amounting to Rs. 29,03,161/- including Interest Income of Rs. 10,332/- and declared Income of Rs. 89,373/-. The company maintains books of accounts and shown the Expenses of Rs. 24,78,470/- against Business Receipt of Rs. 28,92,829/-. The Assessing Officer observed that since there is no compliance of the Notice issued u/s 142(1) and 143(2) and case is barred by limitation for which the assessment has to be completed by stipulated time, therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 2,47,847/- towards the 10% of total salary payments and bonus payments.

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 during the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has not granted sufficient time to produce the evidences related to contract payment as well as the amount towards salary payments and bonus payments. The CIT(A) also has not admitted the additional evidence and dismiss the appeal without giving proper opportunity to define the case on merit to the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the additional evidence be admitted and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer in light of the evidences.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order as well as order of the CIT(A).

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the Assessment Order, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer has not at all given any opportunity to the assessee for filing the evidences to prove the claim of the assessee for salary and bonus expenses. Further, the additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) was simply rejected by the CIT(A) without stating therein any reason and under which condition of Rule 46A, the same should not be admitted. Thus, the CIT(A) has not followed the provisions of the Income Tax Act as well as the Income Tax Rules. Thus, both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) failed to discharge its proper procedural aspect of looking into the evidence given by the assessee before passing an order under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, we are admitting the additional evidence and remanding the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Needless to say that 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, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.