ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM vs. GEO FOUNDATIONS STRUCTURES PVT LTD, ERNAKULAM

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The return of income for AY 2012-13 was filed on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 4,60,66,461/-.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 287 days in filing the present appeal. The Revenue filed a petition along with an Geo Foundations Structures Pvt. Ltd. affidavit seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, wherein it is stated that the delay was due to the time barring work followed by responsibilities related to Election Duty. Additionally, an unexpected extreme shortage of staff and recent transfer of Charge led to temporary disarray in handling the ongoing operations. Furthermore, for the past 15 days the website for filing ITAT portal was down. Hence, we tried filing appeal physically at the ITAT Office in Kakkanad which was not accepted. It was clarified that Departmental Appeals are accepted only through online portal. Therefore, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for adjudication. On a perusal of the averments made in the condonation petition, it is evident that the appellant is prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal. Therefore, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

The learned CIT-DR submits that the respondent assessee had failed to comply with the notices issued by the AO. In the circumstance, the additions were deleted by the CIT(A) considering the additional material and without calling for remand report from AO, violating the provisions of rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. Thus, he submits that the order passed by the CIT(A) be quashed.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that no remand report was called from the AO and has no

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. On a mere perusal of the assessment order it would suggest that the AO made several disallowances for the alleged failure of the assessee to produce necessary evidences in support of the claims for several expenditures. On appeal before the CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A), considering the additional evidences filed before him, without calling for remand report from the AO deleted the additions in respect of project and labour expenditure. The approach adopted by the CIT(A) is erroneous and untenable in the eyes of law as it is passed in violation of provisions of rule 46A of I.T. Rules. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue stands partly allowed.