Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, an individual engaged in trading marbles and granites, filed a return for AY 2009-10, which was assessed by the AO under Section 143(3) with several disallowances including freight charges, car expenses, commission, interest on property acquisition loan, and land development expenses. The CIT(A) provided partial relief on freight charges and land development expenses but confirmed other additions, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and failed to address the detailed submissions made by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh, de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
The key issues involve the validity of various disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), and the CIT(A)'s failure to pass a speaking order addressing the appellant's detailed submissions.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM
O R D E R This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 10.05.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading in marbles and granites.. The return of income for AY 2009-10 was filed on 30.11.2010 disclosing income of Rs. 23,18,220/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the DCIT, Circle-1, Kannur (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 14.11.2011 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at a total income of Rs. 32,31,000/-. While doing so, the Hosdurg Ajith Kumar Kamath AO made disallowance of Rs. 1,38,710/- on the ground that the appellant had failed to deduct tax at source on freight charges of Rs. 6,07,972/-. The AO also disallowed 1/5 of the car expenses by holding to be personal in nature, amounting to Rs. 34,376/-. The AO disallowed commission payment of Rs. 1,36,746/-, commission paid on sale of property. He also disallowed interest paid on loan availed for the purpose of acquisition of property holding to be capital expenses. The AO also disallowed Rs. 2,00,000/- out of Rs. 3,50,000/- claimed as land development expenses while computing the capital gains.
Being aggrieved by the above disallowances an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order deleted the addition on account of freight charges holding that the appellant was not liable to get the books of account audited, hence no TDS is required to be made. The CIT(A) also granted partial relief by allowing cost of land development to Rs. 1,00,000/- against Rs. 2,00,000/-. The balance additions were confirmed.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
I have carefully gone through the orders passed by the lower authorities and find that before the CIT(A) the appellant filed a detailed submission which remained unaddressed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A), by passing a cryptic order, had merely confirmed the additions made by the AO. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2025. 7.