Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had filed Cross Objections. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's books of account and estimated profits, citing non-cooperation and failure to furnish documents.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed submissions and relevant documents. The Assessing Officer failed to examine these documents before rejecting the books and making estimations. The CIT(A) correctly examined the books and deleted the additions, a decision the Tribunal found to be well-reasoned and without infirmity.
Key Issues
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's books of account and making estimated additions without properly examining the provided documents.
Sections Cited
144, 271(1)(b), 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “FE”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL
आदेश आदेश/ORDER आदेश आदेश
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 13/06/2023, for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The assessee has filed Cross Objections to support order of the CIT(A).
Smt. Jayshree Menon representing the Department submitted that CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made in the assessment order dated 30/12/2016. She pointed that during assessment proceedings, the assessee has been non-cooperative. Despite repeated notices, the assessee failed to furnish relevant documents. In absence of any assistance from the assessee, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to reject the Books of Account and estimate profits u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. She further pointed that due to non-cooperation by the assessee, the Assessing Officer had levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, twice. The ld. Departmental Representative thus, prayed for reversing the findings of CIT(A) and upholding the assessment order.
Per contra Shri Shashank Mehta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that assessee had made detailed submissions before the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 09/12/2016 furnishing all the relevant documents viz. Audited Financial Statements for Financial Year 2013-14, Tax Audit Report for A.Y 2014-15, Bank Statements, summary of sale and purchase, etc. The Assessing Officer without taking cognizance of the documents furnished by the assessee, made the assessment estimating net profits @ 21.20%. In the First
(A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. NO9/MUM/2024 Appellate proceedings the CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer on the documents already placed on record by the assessee. The Assessing Officer in remand report did not point any specific defect in the Books of assessee. The CIT(A) after examining the documents furnished during assessment proceedings deleted the addition. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee strongly supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the Revenue.
We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. In assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee on 28/08/2015. The first notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 08/06/2016. Final opportunity to make submissions was allowed by the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 01/12/2016. The assessee vide submissions dated 09/12/2016 (filed on 13/12/2016) before the Assessing Officer made detailed submissions along with relevant documents. The Assessing Officer failed to examine the documents furnished by the assessee and completed the assessment after rejecting Books of Account and estimating profits of the business u/s. 144 of the Act. During First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer on the documents furnished by the assessee during assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer instead of examining and commenting on the documents on record reiterated the conduct of assessee during assessment proceedings. Thus, the Assessing Officer missed the opportunity to examine books of the assessee. Thereafter, the CIT(A) examined Books of assessee and came to the conclusion that the action of Assessing Officer in rejecting books of account
(A.Y. 2014-15) C.O. NO9/MUM/2024 was not proper and justifiable. No plausible reason was given by the Assessing Officer for rejecting books of the assessee, thus, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer on mere estimations. The Department failed to controvert the well reasoned findings of the First Appellate Authority. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal of Revenue is without any merit, hence, dismissed.
The assessee has filed Cross Objections to support the order of CIT(A). Since, we have dismissed appeal of the Revenue, the Cross Objections become infructuous, hence, dismissed as such.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 28th day of March, 2024.