What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed with both parties that the case needed to be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the assessee's submissions. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that the assessee failed to produce books of account and bills/vouchers, and the CIT(A) did not conduct proper inquiries. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded for fresh examination.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's contention without proper verification and whether the AO's estimation of 8% on gross receipts was justified given the lack of documentation.

DCIT vs M/S Creative Capital Services… | ITAT Chandigarh 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCHES ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Hearing: 07/03/2018Pronounced: 14/03/2018

PER BENCH:

Both the above appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the

order of the Ld. CIT(OSD), Gurgaon dt. 31/03/2015.

Since the issues raised in both the appeals are common therefore they

are being disposed off together for the sake of convenience. We shall take ITA

No. 606/CHD/2015 as a lead case.

Assessee has raised the following grounds raised in ITA No. 606/CHD/2015.

"On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in law by accepting the contention of the assessee that complete details called for were furnished during assessment proceedings and Commissioner of Income Tax (A) failed to either make necessary factual enquiry or call for remand report from the A.O. to verify the veracity of the contention of the assessee." 2 " That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in law while rejecting the action of the AO for applying estimation of 8% on the gross receipts despite the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to produce any books of account and bills/vouchers."

At the outset the Revenue took objection in Ground No. 1 that the Ld.

CIT(A) neither conducted necessary factual enquiries nor obtained remand

report from the Assessing Officer while adjudication.

Ld. Representatives of both the parties fairly consented to the fact that

the matter needs to be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for

examination afresh to take into consideration the submissions of the assessee.

Hence we hereby restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh

examination.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14/03/2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated :14/03/2018 AG

Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S CREATIVE CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments