What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's submission that the CIT(A) had decided the issue based on fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer. This violated Rule 46A of the Rules.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs.61,09,274/- made on account of variation between 26AS and the return of income. The CIT(A) had accepted fresh evidence produced by the assessee for the first time.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting an addition based on fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.

ACIT vs Prince Property Management… | ITAT Chennai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY

Pronounced: 15.05.2018

आदेश / O R D E R

Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Chennai dated 26.09.2017 in for the assessment year 2013-14 passed U/s.143(3) of the Act. At the time of hearing the Ld.AR was not present before the Bench, however on perusing the file and the submission of the Ld.DR the Bench decided to hear the appeal ex-parte.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal:-

The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to law and facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1 The ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.61,09,274/- on variation in the figure as reported in 26AS statement against the sum admitted by the appellant in the return of income. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) ought to have given an opportunity of hearing in the form of remand report to the Assessing Officer before deciding the issue based on the reconciliation statement and fresh evidence produced by the assessee firm before the CIT(A) for the first time which were not produced during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings. 3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of providing maintenance service to commercial and residential complexes, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 admitting total income of Rs.3,40,35,730/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice U/s.143(2) of the Act was issued. Finally assessment order was passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act on 15.03.2016, wherein the Ld.AO made additions amongst which one of the addition of Rs.61,09,274/- was towards difference of Form 26AS and the return of income . On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.61,09,274/- by accepting the evidence produced before him for the first time.

At the outset the Ld.DR submitted before us that the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the matter based on fresh evidence produced before him without obtaining a Remand Report from the Ld.AO, thereby depriving the Ld.AO an opportunity to examine the fresh evidence produced for the first time before the Ld.CIT(A).

The Ld.DR therefore argued that the matter may be remitted back the file to the Ld.CIT(A) so that he may pass appropriate order after obtaining the Remand Report from the Ld.AO complying with Rule 46A of the Rules

After hearing the Ld.DR and perusing the materials on record we find merit in the submissions of the Ld.DR. From the facts of the case it is apparent that the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue based on the evidence produced before him for the first time without obtaining Remand Report from the Ld.AO which is in gross violation of Rule 46A of the Rules. Therefore in the interest of justice we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A)

Remand Report from the Ld.AO.

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above.

Order pronounced on the 15th May, 2018 at Chennai.

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI vs. PRINCE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments