Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N. K. SAINI & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 21/6/2011 passed by CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in fact in confirming an addition of Rs.57,45,183/- on account of commission on exports.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in fact in confirming an addition of Rs.48,209/- on account of charity and donation.”
3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Non- Ferrous metals. Return showing loss of Rs.21,55,83,857/- for the Assessment Year 2004-05 was filed on 29/10/2004. The case was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and various notices were issued. The Authorized Representative of the assessee company appeared before the undersigned and filed the details as called for. The addition was made on account of commission on exports to the extent of Rs.57,45,183/- as well as charity and donation for Rs.48,209/- along with other advance by the Assessing Officer .
Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee has filed the present appeal in respect of two issued relating to addition on account of commission on exports and addition on account of charity and donation. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee was a sick company and have been referred to BRFI since the factory was closed for 5 to 6 years. The assessee could not get documents for which request was made for admission of the additional evidence under Rule 46A (1) of the Income Tax Rules 1962. Thus, the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence.
The Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be sent back to Assessing Officer and the documents and additional evidence has been procured by the assessee. The same needs to be verified.
The Ld. DR objected to the same.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the assessment order it is clear that the Assessing Officer made additions only on account of absence of evidence. Though the said evidence was produced before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) has not allowed the same by calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in the interest of justice it is proper and just to remand back these two issues decided herein afresh before the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the assessee be given full opportunity of hearing as well as producing the additional evidence before the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer after verifying the said evidences can decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
In result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th November, 2017.