ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI vs. SEKAR SARADA, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2672/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 September 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) considered fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer, violating Rule 46A. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a belated return declaring a loss. The Assessing Officer made significant additions due to non-cooperation and lack of details. The CIT(A) granted relief on cash credits, restricted disallowance on agricultural income, and deleted disallowances on sundry creditors and expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting fresh evidence without a remand report from the AO. Whether the additions made by the AO were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 41(1),Section 37,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Hearing: 10.07.2019Pronounced: 10.09.2019

O R D E R

PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai dated 28.06.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. The Revenue has challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) in granting relief against addition towards unexplained cash credit, granting partial relief by restricting the disallowance at 20% on the claim of agricultural income, and deleting the disallowance of sundry creditors of ₹.15.35 crores as well as disallowance of expenses to the tune of ₹.48.49 lakhs on the basis of the fresh evidences/details produced by the assessee without given an opportunity to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed belated return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30.03.2016 declaring loss of ₹.78,11,113/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was duly served on the assessee. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 16.08.2016 and notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 31.10.2016 calling for various details were issued. Final show cause notice was also issued to the assessee on 05.12.2016, but there was no reply from the assessee. Since there was continuous non-cooperation from the assessee in furnishing the relevant details, the Assessing Officer proceeded to conclude the assessment under section 144 of the Act after considering the materials available on record and determined the income of the assessee at ₹.15,85,88,118/- by making various additions.

3.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the addition made under section 68 of the Act, disallowance of agricultural income, disallowance of sundry credits under section 41(1) of the Act and deleting the expenses under section 37 of the Act. After considering various documents and submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, against which, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Since the assessee has not responded to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the best judgement assessment was passed under section 144 of the Act. Against the addition towards cash credits to the tune of ₹.32,43,500/- after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as considering various other materials, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of ₹.20,31,580/-.

4.1 Against the disallowance of agricultural income, after considering various documents furnished by the assessee, such as, the sale deed for the agricultural lands held by the assessee, patta, chitta, adangal, VAO’s certificate with regard to the agricultural yield and returns of income of various earlier assessment years, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 20% of the agricultural income declared by the assessee, which is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

4.2 With regard to the disallowance of sundry creditors as well as various expenses booked under the profit and loss account, since the assessee failed to provide any substantial proofs/evidences, both the claim of the assessee was disallowed. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) granted partial relief to the above disallowances.

4.3 However, while deleting/granting partial relief of various disallowances, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has not obtained any remand report from the Assessing Officer on the fresh materials taken into consideration, which is in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine and decide all the above issues afresh in accordance with law after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish all material evidence and explanation for deciding the issues.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 10th September, 2019 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →