Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 19.05.2015 of CIT(A)-20, New Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year.
Although various grounds have been raised by the assessee in the present appeal.
However, at the time of hearing, both the parties addressed only Ground No. 2 which reads as under:-
2. “In ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer had wrongly added Rs.1,00,835/- to the returned income of the assessee on account of additional gross receipts from M/s Sindh Projects Masonary Dam Division, which was being contested in appeal before the CIT(A), while the same represented TDS on the gross receipts of Rs.42,72,686/- received by the assessee from the said client and duly entered by him in his books of accounts and in his turnover.”
Inviting attention to the assessment order, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the assessee declared an income of Rs.30,83,170/- on 30/09/2011. The assessee, it was submitted is engaged in the business of Installations of POTACABIN made up of Fiber,
I.T.A .No.-4827/Del/2015 Plywood, wood and G.I. Sheets etc. Basically complete POTA CABIN also constructed and installed.
2.1. It was submitted that since at the time of filing of the return, the assessee had not received the full particulars of the deduction made by M/s Sindh Projects Masonry amounting to Rs.1,00,835/- the assessee filed revised computation of income in the course of the assessment proceedings. However, the Assessing Officer being of the view that it was not reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee added the same to the income of the assessee.
In appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee filed fresh evidences and submitted that the necessary corrections had been carried out in the computation of income. However, despite the availability of Remand Report where the Assessing Officer had accepted that the receipt of Rs.42,72,686/- from M/s Sindh Projects Masonary were reflected therein the CIT(A) did not appreciate this fact.
Inviting attention to the Paper Book pages 4 and 5, it was submitted that it is a copy of Form No.16A issued by M/s E.E.Sindh Project Masonry Dam Division Manikhada on 12.10.2012 where the breakup of these specific amounts deducted is indicated. As a result of this fact, it was his submission that the return was revised by the assessee by way of filing a Revised Computation of income and these are reflected in the said Revised Computation filed before the AO. Attention was invited to the fact that the return was filed on 30.09.2011. In the circumstances and in the face of the Remand Report where all these facts have been examined, addition on this account was not warranted on facts. Referring to the order of the CIT(A), it was his submission that the Ld. CIT(A) misdirected herself
I.T.A .No.-4827/Del/2015 while trying to do a reconciliation of the 26AS with the books of accounts of the assessee and relying upon the Computation of Income filed originally.
4.1. The Ld. Sr. DR relying upon the orders of the tax authority submitted that the assessee may need to demonstrate that the return filed could be revised and whether the Revised Computation was accepted by the AO or not. However, she had no objection if the facts are verified.
The record shows that fresh evidence was filed before the CIT(A) and the reliance has been placed on the Remand Report where facts are stated to be accepted however allegation of contradictory statements during the assessment stage are relied upon. I find that the issue needs to decided on the basis of facts and evidences and not necessarily only by an argument advanced before the AO at the assessment stage. As per the record, assessee claims relief on the basis of aforesaid Form 16A stated to be made available to the assessee only on or after 12.10.2012 thus in the original computation these could not be reflected. Since the aspect has not been addressed and examined the impugned order is set aside and the ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider the claim of the assessee addressing the specific document and incase the CIT(A) is of the view that the said evidence is not a relevant evidence for deciding the issue then the specific reasoning and conclusion it is made clear is required to be set out in writing after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The mere argument that the said plea was not raised before the AO, it is made clear should not be the basis for rejecting the facts and evidence in support of the argument. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the issue is restored back to the CIT(A) in terms of the above direction.