DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. RMP INFOTECH (P) LTD., CHENNAI

The Revenue has raised several grounds, however the crux of the issue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.3,59,47,376/- invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act due to non-deduction of tax at source towards courier charges paid.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in multi-level marketing of goods and services filed its return on 07.01.2010 electronically in response to notice u/s. 142(1) and notice u/s. 148 along with notice u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. Subsequently the assessment was finalized u/s.143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2010 wherein the Ld. AO made additions on account of three counts amongst which one of the addition was made for Rs.3,59,47,376/- invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source against payment for courier charges. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition.

At the outset, the Ld. DR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition based on fresh evidence without obtaining a remand report from the Ld. AO. It was therefore requested that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh consideration in the light of the evidence filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover at the time of hearing the Ld. AR failed to appear before the bench.

After hearing the Ld. DR, we find merit in his contention. Since it is evident that fresh evidence was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) based on which the Ld. CIT(A) has held the issue in favour of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the Ld. AO should also be given an fair opportunity to examine the fresh evidence placed before the Ld. CIT(A) for the first time. Therefore in the interest of justice we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for de-nova consideration.

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.