ACIT, NCC-7(1), CHENNAI vs. NIRMALA, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3182/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 August 2019AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not calling for a remand report from the AO when fresh details were filed by the assessee. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added Rs. 91,29,061/- to the assessee's income on account of unexplained sundry creditors, as the assessee could not produce sufficient evidence. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after the assessee furnished various documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly discharged the onus of proof by not calling for a remand report when new evidence was presented during the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 16.08.2019

: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by Addl. CIT : Shri N.Arjun Raj, C.A ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : 10.07.2019 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 16.08.2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, in 7/2017-18 dated 23.08.2018 for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

Smt. Nirmala, the assessee, an individual is running a marriage hall and transport business. While making the assessment for AY 2015-16, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed, inter alia, that certain discrepancies

2 -: with regard to sundry creditors and hence, the AO called for explanation.

The assessee submitted that instead of loans and advances a wrong grouping was made under sundry creditors. Therefore, the AO called for further evidences. The assessee could not produce any evidence. In view of that the AO added Rs. 91,29,061/- and completed the assessment.

3. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee furnished various documents. On examination of them, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved against that order, the Revenue filed this appeal with the following grounds:

“1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the Law and facts of the case. 2.1 The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s.68 of the Act by holding that assessee has discharged the primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. 2.2 The CIT(A) omitted to consider the fact that the assessee did not discharged the primary onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction before the AC during the course of assessment proceedings, hence, the addition was made. 2.3 The CIT(A) omitted to call for remand report u/r. 46A, when the assessee furnished any details/evidence in support of its claim during the appellate proceedings, on which the CIT(A) relied on the same and allowed the ground of the assessee.

3.

For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

3 -: 4. The Ld. DR argued and presented the case on the lines of the grounds of the appeal, supra. Per contra, the ld. AR supported the order of ld. CIT(A).

5.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. Since, the ld. CIT(A) omitted to call for the remand report from the AO, on the fresh details filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has clearly made out a case u/r. 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to remit this issue back to the file of AO for a fresh examination. The assessee shall place all the material on which she relies in support of her contentions before the AO and comply with the requirements of the AO in accordance with law. The AO on due examination of the issues, and after affording due opportunity to the assessee, shall pass a speaking order.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed 6. for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on the day of 16th August, 2019 in 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 →