TIMMS CORPORATE ALLIANCE & STRATEGIC MARKETING SERVICES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted details to the AO, but the AO passed the order without considering them. The Tribunal agreed to restore the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in selling novelty gift articles, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of account and made additions to the total income, stating that no vouchers were produced for administrative expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO correctly rejected the assessee's books of account and made additions without considering the submitted details. Whether the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D.T. GARASIA & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
Per D.T. Garasia, Judicial Member:
The above titled appeals have been preferred by the assessee for the same assessment year against the common order dated 29.02.2012 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)].
The short facts of the case are that the assessee firm is engaged in the business of selling novelty gift articles through catalogue and through exhibition and trade fairs. The return of income originally was filed by the assessee on 31.10.06 declaring total income of Rs.17,65,790/- along with tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act. The return was selected for 2 ITA No.2711/M/2012 M/s. Timms Corporate Alliance & Marketing Services scrutiny. The assessee submitted various details from time to time to Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO). The AO has completed the assessment under section 143(3) determining the total income of Rs.65,75,545/- by rejecting the books of account under section 145 and making the addition/disallowance out of maximum all administrative expenses stating that no voucher was produced. The assessee went in appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed.
Before us, the Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee submitted various details which were called by the AO. The assessee has also submitted the affidavit of one Mr. M.V. Kamble who was working as an accountant with the assessee and he was attending to these tax matters. The Ld. A.R. submitted that assessee has submitted all the details which are filed before us by way of paper book by Exhibit No.1 to 169. He further submitted that the AO has rejected the books of accounts on the ground that assessee has not submitted the details. The assessee did submit the details but assessment order was passed. Therefore, he requested to send this matter back to the file of the AO.
3. The Ld. D.R. fairly conceded that if the matter is restored to AO, he has no objection.
We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances, we find that the assessee has submitted all the details before the AO and the same are filed before us by way of paper book by Exhibit No.1 to 169. However, the AO passed the order without looking into the details submitted by the assessee. At this stage, we are of the view that since the assessee has requested to restore the matter to the AO and Ld. D.R. has not objected to it, we deem it fit to send the matter back to the file of the AO for denovo adjudication.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.05.2017.
More judgments on Section 145
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs Kuldeep Chhabra, New DelhiITA 6507/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi vs Kuldeep Chhabra, New DelhiITA 6506/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Mintu Lal, Ranchi vs Assessing Officer, RanchiITA 140/RAN/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ontic Finserve Limited, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward -3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1924/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026