THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1)(4), BANGALORE vs. M/S SUKH SAGAR HOTELS PVT LTD, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 851/BANG/2018Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2018AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it proper to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. This would be done after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer and providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to both parties.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2013-14. The CIT(A) decided an issue in favor of the assessee based on a sale deed submitted for the first time, without obtaining a remand report from the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was right in deciding an issue based on additional evidence without a remand report from the AO, and whether the sale deed was conclusive proof of payment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri Abdul Hakeem .M, JCIT (DR)
Hearing: 26.04.2018Pronounced: 04.05.2018

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

1.

This appeal is filed by the revenue and this is directed against the order of ld. CIT (A)-6, Bangalore dated 06.10.2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The grounds raised

by the revenue are as under. “1. The order of the CIT (Appeals) is opposed to law and the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, whether the ld.CIT(A) is right in passing order without calling a remand report from the AO on additional evidences submitted by the assessee as per the provisions of rule 46A.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case whether the CIT(A) is right in relying on the sales deed which may not be conclusive proof of actual payment and receipts taking place.

3. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is humbly prayed that the order of the CIT(A), in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

4.

The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, to amend or delete any of the grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3.

This appeal was fixed for hearing for the first time on 10.04.2018 and on this date, the ld. AR of assessee Ms. Shylashree, Advocate appeared and sought adjournment. On her request, hearing was adjourned to 26.04.2018 and date of hearing was pronounced in the open court and the same was noted by ld. AR of assessee by signing in the order sheet. On this date i.e. 26.04.2018, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and there is no request for adjournment and hence, the appeal was heard ex-parte qua the assessee.

4. The ld. DR of revenue supported the assessment order. He submitted that ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue on the basis of copy of sale deed dated 09.07.2012 although the same was not available before the AO and it was made available before the CIT(A) for the first time and CIT(A) has not obtained remand report from the AO. He submitted that either the order of CIT(A) should be reversed or that of AO should be restored or it should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after obtaining remand report from the AO.

5.

I have considered the submissions of ld. DR of revenue and gone through the orders of authorities below. I find that it is noted by AO on page 2 of assessment order that in spite of repeated reminders, the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in respect of the cost related to sale of Rs. 45 Lakhs. As per the impugned order of CIT (A), this issue was decided by her in favour of the assessee as per copy of sale deed dated 09.07.2012 made available before her. I also find that ld. CIT (A) has not obtained remand report from AO and therefore, I feel it proper to restore the matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after obtaining remand report from the AO. Hence I set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for a fresh decision in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →