Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI JASON P BOAZ
O R D E R Per Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the CIT(A), LTU, Bangalore, dated 31/07/2014 dismissing the assessee’s appeal without admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, engaged in the business of manufacture of turned components and machineries, filed his return of income on 27/09/2008
Sri Venkatachalapathy Ramesh Page 2 of 4 declaring a total income of Rs.2,80,110/-. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’], the Assessing Officer (AO) called for various details by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The assessee was represented by a C.A. who filed certain details. On perusal of the details filed by the assessee, AO noticed that the assessee did not comply with scrutiny notices and did not file all the details asked for. He, therefore, completed the assessment on the basis of the material available on record by assessing the total income at Rs.19,36,230/- and brought it to tax.
Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) along with other details such as vouchers for rent payment, audit reports furnished under the Karnataka VAT Act, 2003, VAT 100 return forms, confirmation from 5 sundry creditors having balance of more than Rs.25,000/- and ledger accounts from the books of M/s.Precision Auto Products for consumable items, repairs and maintenance, transportation charges, travelling and conveyance, vehicle maintenance, staff welfare, salary and wages, office maintenance and handling charges etc. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not filed these details before the AO nor has he filed an application for admission of the additional evidence in terms of rule 46A of the IT Rules. He further observed that the assessee did not avail of the opportunity provided by the AO. Therefore, he was of the opinion that non- compliance of the assessee before the AO is not acceptable. She,
Sri Venkatachalapathy Ramesh Page 3 of 4 accordingly, dismissed the assessee’s appeal without admitting th additional evidence. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO had issued notice u/s 143(2) on 17/08/2009 and subsequently assessee had appeared and sought time for furnishing of the details. It is stated that the assessee was not in a position to gather information within the time granted by the AO and therefore he has filed all the details before the CIT(A) and prayed that the CIT(A) may be directed to admit the additional evidence and re-consider the issue on merits.
The learned departmental representative, however, opposed the said contention of the assessee.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has filed additional evidence before the CIT(A) but has not filed any application for admission of additional evidence because of which the CIT(A) has dismissed the same. We agree that it is the assessee’s responsibility to file all the details called for by the AO, but when the same are filed before the CIT(A), we are of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, the CIT(A) ought to have considered the same on merits. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file an application for Sri Venkatachalapathy Ramesh Page 4 of 4 admission of additional evidence and upon such filing, the CIT(A) shall follow due process of law and decide the appeal on merits.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.