9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 497 - AT - Income TaxConfirmation of addition Proper documentary evidences not considered genuineness or bogus transaction - Held that - All the documents furnished as additional evidences, were obtained by the assessee after the order of the FAA, that it had made inquiries under the RTI Act from the banks and obtained such documents that could affect the outcome of the appeal - Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules stipulates that if appellant can prove that it was prevented by sufficient cause for not producing some documents before the AO or the FAA, Tribunal may allow it to produce the same before it - the documents filed by the assessee are useful to decide the issues raised - hence same are being admitted as additional evidence u. r. 29 of the ITAT, Rules - As the AO/ FAA had no occasion to consider these documents thus, the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Assessee.
Issues:
1. Addition of Rs 27,68,875 as bogus transaction from M/s. Surbhi International 2. Addition of Rs 4,71,565 as bogus transaction from M/s. Sai Raj Enterprises 3. Addition of Rs 5,41,440 as bogus transaction from M/s New Saral Ceramics 4. Accounting method followed by the Appellant and its impact on total income 5. Admission of additional evidences by the ITAT Issue 1: The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai addressed the challenge against the addition of Rs 27,68,875 as a bogus transaction from M/s. Surbhi International. The Assessee argued that the purchases were accounted for in the books with documentary evidence. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The ITAT considered additional evidences filed by the Assessee post the CIT(A) order and found them relevant. Citing ITAT Rules, the Tribunal admitted the new evidence and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing a reasonable opportunity for the Assessee to be heard. Issue 2: Regarding the addition of Rs 4,71,565 as a bogus transaction from M/s. Sai Raj Enterprises, the ITAT noted the Assessee's submission of additional evidence obtained post the CIT(A) order. Following the legal precedent and the ITAT Rules, the Tribunal admitted the new evidence and remanded the case to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing a fair hearing for the Assessee. Issue 3: The ITAT examined the addition of Rs 5,41,440 as a bogus transaction from M/s New Saral Ceramics. The Assessee contended that the transaction pertained to a different assessment year. The Tribunal considered the additional evidence submitted by the Assessee, acquired after the CIT(A) proceedings, and admitted it based on the provisions of ITAT Rules. Consequently, the matter was sent back to the AO for a fresh decision, with instructions for a thorough review of the new documents. Issue 4: The ITAT analyzed the Appellant's challenge regarding the impact of the accounting method on the total income. The Appellant argued that the additions should not affect the total income but only reduce the cost from closing work-in-progress. The Tribunal, after admitting additional evidence and following legal guidelines, remanded the case to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a reasoned order after considering the new documents. Issue 5: The ITAT considered the admission of additional evidences by the Assessee during the hearing. The Assessee presented new documents obtained post the CIT(A) decision, justifying their relevance to the case. Following legal precedents and the ITAT Rules, the Tribunal allowed the new evidence, remanding the matter to the AO for a fresh evaluation with instructions to provide a fair hearing to the Assessee. Ultimately, the appeal by the Assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
|
