9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1738 - AT - Income TaxAdditional evidence rejected by AO without giving an appropriate and proper opportunity to the assessee - Held that - The assessee filed the details of the reconciliation of cash book and balances. AO in the remand report stated that the new cash book produced by the assessee as additional evidence is a recasted and fabricated document and is not acceptable. It is undisputed that AO submitted remand report without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain and present its case. CIT (Appeals) accepted the remand report and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus the additional evidence has been rejected by the Assessing Officer without giving an appropriate and proper opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. Accordingly, we set aside the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues:
1. Valid jurisdiction of the CIT(A) based on PIN CODE 2. Addition of alleged deficit cash without proper examination of evidence 3. Addition based on remand report without giving opportunity for representation 4. Reliance on impounded KACHA CASH BOOK without authority 5. Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) without proper appreciation of facts Analysis: Issue 1: Valid jurisdiction of the CIT(A) based on PIN CODE The appellant contended that the Appellate order passed by the CIT(A) lacked valid jurisdiction based on the PIN CODE. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail in the judgment. Issue 2: Addition of alleged deficit cash without proper examination of evidence The main dispute revolved around the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained difference of cash. The appellant argued that sufficient cash was available, supported by evidence such as Reconciled Cash Book and Sales Register. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate opportunity for the appellant to furnish details and explanations. The appellant submitted a new cash book, but it was rejected without proper consideration. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after giving the appellant a fair opportunity to present its case. Issue 3: Addition based on remand report without giving opportunity for representation The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer submitted a remand report without allowing the appellant to explain or present its case. The CIT(A) accepted this report and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence was dismissed without proper opportunity for the appellant to clarify its position, leading to the decision to remand the matter for a fresh assessment. Issue 4: Reliance on impounded KACHA CASH BOOK without authority The appellant raised concerns about the reliance placed on the impounded KACHA CASH BOOK without proper authority and access for reconciliation. However, the Tribunal did not provide detailed analysis on this specific issue in the judgment. Issue 5: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) without proper appreciation of facts The appellant contested the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) without the proper appreciation of facts and circumstances. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue in the judgment, as the focus was primarily on the unexplained difference of cash. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, highlighting procedural irregularities and lack of proper opportunities for the appellant to present its case effectively. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision with due consideration to the appellant's submissions and evidence.
|
