M/S. PEARL AGENCIES,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2261/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 January 2016AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it necessary to verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the assessee. To impart substantial justice, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding an addition of Rs. 51,66,836/- on account of alleged differences in creditor balances. The assessee also contended that additional evidence filed under Rule 46A was wrongly rejected.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence and confirming additions on account of creditor balances without proper verification, and if Section 41(1) was correctly applied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI N.K. SAINI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Respondent: Smt. Rasmita Jha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.12.2015Pronounced: 15.01.2016

ORDER

PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)’s-19, New Delhi vide his order dated 07/03/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 on the following grounds:

1. “That the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) upholding the action of the Assessing Officer regarding addition of Rs. 51,66,836/- on account of alleged differences in the balances of creditors is bad in law and on the facts of the assessee’s case.

2. That the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in rejecting the admission of additional documents/evidences filed before him on frivolous grounds.

2.1 That the ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that additional evidence filed as per Rule 46A was legally and properly filed and should have admitted the same.

3. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the assessee’s case in confirming the addition in respect of old outstanding creditors although in some of the cases the balance confirmed exceeded the amount that was being shown outstanding in the books of the assessee.

4.

That the CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer to apply the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act.

5.

That the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition based on conjecture and surmises without applying his mind to the facts of the assessee’s case.

6.

That the order passed by the CIT(A) confirming the order of the Assessing Officer is bad in law and is prayed to be quashed.”

2.

In ground no. 2.1 the assessee has raised a ground regarding non admission of additional evidence filed under Rule 46A by the ld. CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. It is brought to our notice that the ld. CIT(A) had called for the remand report, wherein in the remand report the ld. Assessing Officer had left it to the wisdom of the ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence. The addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer is in respect of balances under the head “Sundry Creditors”. It is, therefore, necessary to verify the genuineness of the documents produced by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings.

3.

Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that in order to impart substantial justice to assessee the matter needs to be restored back to the file of AO for passing the assessment order denovo. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of AO to pass the assessment order denovo. Needless to say that the assessee may be issued proper notice and opportunity may be granted to represent the case. The Assessing Officer is free to make all the necessary enquiries/investigations in respect of the same. 4. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is statistically allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.01.2016 Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. SAINI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 15.01.2016 *Kavita, P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Date 1. Draft dictated on 15.12.15 2. Draft placed before author 16.12.15 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 15.01.2016 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 20.01.2016 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order.

More judgments on Section 41(1)

All 1,943 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →