Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company filed its return of income, which was selected for verification regarding large contract payments made to persons who had not filed their income tax returns. Notices were issued, but the assessee failed to respond adequately. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income, and the CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) incorrectly observed that the assessee had not uploaded requisite documents. The assessee contended that they had provided all necessary documents, including bank statements proving payments, and that the payments were made to Soni Chatrath & Co., not PNAM & Co. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance of non-consideration of documents.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the documents uploaded by the assessee in support of the expenses claimed? Whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the documents and the assessee's contentions?
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 144B, 143(2), 142(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
ORDER
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 09.01.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of Assessment Order dated 21.12.2022 of the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. AO”) under Sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act for assessment year 2021-22.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 19.02.2022 declaring income of Rs.76,81,327/-. The case was selected with reason for verification of “the assessee has shown large payment as contract payments to persons who have not filed return of income for the relevant assessment year. Here the identity of persons to whom payments have been made and genuineness of transactions needs to be verified”. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.06.2022. Notices under Section 142(1) dated 12.08.2022 and 03.11.2022 as well as letter dated 23.11.2022 were issued to the assessee. The assessee failed to respond the notices and letter. Show-cause-notice dated 06.12.2022 was issued. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 21.12.2022 made additions of Rs.2,89,23,237/-. Rs.3,75,000/-, Rs.1,14,28,183/- and Rs.4,79,873/-.
Against order dated 21.12.2022 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 09.01.2024.
Learned Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Ld. AO by incorrectly by observing as under: “Though opportunities have been given during the course of appellate proceedings, no details have been uploaded”.
That the said observation is wrong in as much as the appellant had duly uploaded all the requisite documents in support of the expenses claimed on account of services provided by M/s. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Unfortunately, all the papers filed vide acknowledgement no.125276841250423 in response to notice dated 01.03.2023 have not been ignored by the NFAC.
In fact, appellant had filed all papers to the notice dated 01.03.2023 which are at pages 92 and 93 of the paper books. 4.1 Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that payments were made to Soni Chatrath & Co. and not PNAM & Co. and the same was shown to the Ld. AO as well as to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC by way of appending the copies of bank statement which showed the payments having indeed being made. The matter may be restored to the file of Ld. AO.
Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submitted that the appellant/assessee claims non-consideration of relevant documents by Ld. CIT(A). So the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is material fact that Ld. CIT(A) while dealing with ground no. 2 of the appeal on page no. 8 observed that “Though opportunities have been given during the course of appellate proceedings, no details have been uploaded”. The said observation is wrong in as much as the appellant had duly uploaded all the requisite documents in support of the expenses claimed on account of services provided by M/s. Futuretimes Technology India Pvt. Ltd. Unfortunately, all the