Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a PWD contractor, declared a total income of INR 30,44,140 for AY 2018-19. The AO, noticing a difference of INR 1,38,31,286 between receipts reported in ITR and Form 26AS, added this amount to the assessee's income and disallowed INR 18,000 in interest expenses for non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate the difference in receipts. Observing that these documents were presented for the first time and not considered by lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issue to the jurisdictional AO for a de novo adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the addition for difference in receipts between ITR and Form 26AS was justified, whether interest disallowance for non-TDS was correct, and if additional evidence should be admitted by the ITAT leading to a de novo adjudication by the AO.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 143(2), Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail
:Asst.Year 2018-2019 N J Thomas and Co The Assistant Commissioner Mattethra Colony, YMCA Lane, v. of Income-tax, Circle-1 Kottayam – 686 001. Kottayam. PAN : AAEFN3878P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.C.A.Jojo, Advocate Respondent by :Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR Date of Date of Hearing :25.03.2025 Pronouncement : 27.03.2025 O R D E R
Per Sandeep Singh Karhail, JM :
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 23/09/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: “
1. Because the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal by rejecting the grounds of the appellant.
2. Because the appellant has collected external confirmations for differences in contract receipts between 26AS and Financial Statements and even though the same were not produced before . N J Thomas and Co. the lower authorities, the same may be allowed to be produced for the first time before the Hon'ble Tribunal and it may be accepted and justice be done as per law.
Because the order of the learned CIT(A) is bad in law and facts.
The assessee craves to add / alter any of the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of PWD contract from the Government of Kerala. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 28/02/2019, declaring a total income of INR 30,44,140. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and statutory notices under section 143(2) and section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. On verification of ITR, Form 26AS, and submissions filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2018-19, it was noticed that the assessee has offered less receipts in its return of income in comparison to the amount appearing as in Form 26AS. Since in respect of an amount of INR 1,38,31,286, being the difference in receipts as per ITR and contractual receipts as per Form 26AS, the assessee did not furnish any supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide order dated 01/06/2021 passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act added the same to the total income of the assessee. Further, the AO also disallowed the interest expense due to the non-deduction of TDS amounting to INR 18,000.
. N J Thomas and Co. 4. In appeal before the learned CIT(A), despite various notices being issued, as noted in para 2 of the order, no reply/submission was filed on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, vide impugned ex–parte order, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is evident that the learned CIT(A) has passed the order ex-parte due to the non-appearance of/on behalf of the assessee. The learned AR, before us, filed a written submission stating the reasons for non-compliance with the notices issued by the learned CIT(A). Further, the learned AR also placed on record an application dated 27/02/2025 filed by the assessee for seeking admission of additional evidence to substantiate the difference in receipts as per ITR and contractual receipts as per Form 26AS.
Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee pertaining to the addition made on account of the difference in the receipts appearing in Form 26AS and as declared in ITR. Since these documents have been filed by the assessee for the first time before us and have not been considered by the lower authorities, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication after the necessary examination/verification of the details filed by the assessee. No order . N J Thomas and Co. shall be passed without affording the reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With the above directions, the impugned order is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 27th day of March, 2025.