2016 (10) TMI 91 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of discrepancy in expenditure incurred by the assessee under the head purchase, advertisement & legal expenses - differences in account balance reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee vis- -vis in the books of accounts of the two parties - information not forwarded/confronted to the assessee for comments and rebuttal - Held that - The A.O. issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the two parties i.e. M/s Carat Media Service Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Oglivy & Mather Pvt. Ltd. asking information regarding the services rendered to the assessee. The information were received by the AO but the information obtained by the AO from these two parties were not forwarded/confronted to the assessee for comments and rebuttal.The assessee was prejudiced by the action of the AO as the said information was used against the assessee by the AO without confronting the same to the assessee. The assessee on its part had also failed to produce its books of accounts and purchase bills before the AO for verification. These books of accounts as well purchase invoices were not even produced by the assessee before the learned CIT(A). In our considered view and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to restore the matter to the file of the A.O. to de-novo decide the issue s on merits and hence we set aside the order of learned CIT(A). The A.O. shall forward to the assessee all the information which was obtained by the AO in pursuance of notices issued u/s 133(6) to these two parties namely M/s. Carat Media Service Private Limited and M/s Ogilvy and Mather Private Limited. The assessee is directed to produce all the relevant evidences and explanations before the AO in its defense to justify and defend its claims and contentions to reconcile the difference. Needless to say proper and adequate opportunity of hearing shall be granted by the AO to the assessee in accordance with principles of natural justice in accordance with law

Issues Involved:
1. Discrepancy in expenditure incurred by the assessee under the head purchase, advertisement, and legal expenses.
2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer without proper verification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Discrepancy in Expenditure:
The primary issue revolves around the discrepancies noted by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the expenses claimed by the assessee under the heads of purchase, advertisement, and legal expenses, particularly with two concerns: M/s Carat Media Services India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Ogilvy & Mather Pvt. Ltd. The AO observed that the assessee had debited various payments to these concerns under different heads, leading to a mismatch in the amounts confirmed by the concerns and the amounts claimed by the assessee.

For Carat Media Services India Pvt. Ltd., the AO noted that the total amount billed to the assessee was ?1,45,06,967, whereas the assessee claimed ?2,27,09,568, leading to a discrepancy of ?82,02,601. Similarly, for Ogilvy & Mather Pvt. Ltd., the AO found a discrepancy of ?71,67,764 between the amount confirmed by the concern and the amount claimed by the assessee. The AO concluded that these discrepancies indicated bogus entries to reduce taxable income, leading to the addition of the disputed amounts to the assessee's total income.

2. CIT(A)'s Deletion of Additions:
The assessee appealed against the AO's order, arguing that the discrepancies were due to errors in including intra-unit purchases and incorrect classification of credits in the accounts of the two concerns. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation, noting that the total purchases and expenses debited to the Profit and Loss account were consistent and not disputed by the AO. The CIT(A) found that the AO had considered some expenses twice and had no basis to treat the entries as bogus. Consequently, the CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO.

3. Revenue's Appeal:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that the assessee had not substantiated its claims with proper evidence and had not produced its books of accounts and purchase bills for verification. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal without remanding the matter to the AO for verification.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal noted that the AO had used information obtained from the two concerns without confronting the assessee with this information, thereby prejudicing the assessee. Additionally, the assessee had failed to produce relevant evidence before both the AO and the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the AO for a de-novo decision on merits. The AO was directed to forward the information obtained from the two concerns to the assessee and allow the assessee to produce relevant evidence and explanations. The AO was instructed to grant proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, ensuring that the assessee is given a fair opportunity to defend its claims. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.

← Previous Next →