Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 11.02.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2011-12.
The short facts of the case are as under:
2 M/s. Platinum Communications Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) During the assessment proceedings, while going through Schedule - 11 – operating costs to the profit & loss account of the assessee for the year under consideration, observed that the assessee has debited display charges of Rs.87,65,67,447/- and during the course of assessment proceedings, asked the assessee to furnish party-wise details of purchases debited to P & L account along with one sample bill of each party. In reply, the assessee submitted details of purchases. Thereafter, vide annexure to notice under section 142(1) dated 31.07.2013, the assessee was asked that, display charges of Rs.87,65,67,447/- has been debited under the head “Operating Costs’ in the P & L accunt as per Schedule. The assessee was asked to submit the details in a specific format as given in the body of the order. The total cost of sale book by the assessee was in consideration of Rs.87.65 crores. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked to furnish the name, address and PAN number and other particulars regarding parties to whom the exceeding Rs.5 lakhs was booked. The AO issued notice under section 133(6) on random basis to 32 parties. The assessee could not produce the parties but assessee was able to produce the confirmation letter after the assessment order. Therefore, the AO has made the addition of Rs.87,65,67,447/-.
Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal.
3 M/s. Platinum Communications Pvt. Ltd.
During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. A.R. submitted that during the course of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A) the Ld. CIT(A) held that during the course of proceedings assessee has fairly conceded that a part of purchase may be added to the total income of the assessee in order to close the matter. The Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee did not give such concession to the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, he requested that the matter may be again sent back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter on merit.
The Ld. D.R. did not agree to it.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that assessee has produced confirmation letter in respect of the parties and assessee has not given any concession before us. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we restore this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the matter afresh in respect of the addition sustained of Rs.87,65,67,447/- and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.112017.