2016 (11) TMI 594 - AT - Income Tax

Undisclosed receipt - difference in gross receipts and as per NSDL e-TDS record - bills raised is not supported by any documentary evidence such as confirmation from M/s Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd - appellant has stated that these accounts has been audited and there has been no understatement of turnover and the disputed turnover was part of work in progress and that out of ₹ 1,02,64,469/- for various sites, out of which work was completed and bill raised of ₹ 73,69,626/- and the same amount has been offered for tax. Held that - Therefore keeping in view the facts of the present case we allow this ground in,principle in favour of the assessee as the assessee has argued that he has also offered the balance of ₹ 28,94,843/- in subsequent years and tax has been paid in subsequent years. Since the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has taken a specific stand that the assessee has not submitted any copy of return of income which would shows that the assessee has offered the balance of ₹ 28,94,843/- from M/s Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd. for taxation. Therefore, in the interest of justice and while setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A), we remit the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to the assessee to file copy of return of income which shows that assessee had already paid tax on the balance of ₹ 28,94,843/- from M/s Amalgamated Bean Coffee Trading Co. Ltd. and there after AO is directed to verify the same and if the AO found that the amount has already been offered for taxation, then the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition. Following the discussion we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ex-parte decision by Ld. CIT(A)
2. Addition of undisclosed receipts
3. Dismissal of grounds by Ld. CIT(A)
4. Reopening of the case

Ex-parte Decision by Ld. CIT(A):
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the grounds that the decision was made ex-parte due to a missed hearing date. The appellant argued that the hearing was unintentionally missed, while the respondent claimed intentional avoidance by the appellant. The Tribunal noted the missed hearings and the lack of representation by the appellant. The Ld. CIT(A) decided to proceed with the case based on available material after providing ample opportunities for a hearing. The Tribunal upheld the decision, stating that adequate hearing opportunities were provided, and no interference was necessary.

Addition of Undisclosed Receipts:
The appellant contested the addition of ?28,94,843 as undisclosed receipts by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The appellant explained that the amount was received as an advance for various sites, and the final bill acceptance was contingent on work completion. The appellant argued that the balance had been offered in subsequent years and tax paid accordingly. The Tribunal acknowledged the submissions, noting the absence of documentary evidence supporting the bills raised. However, considering the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal allowed the ground in principle in favor of the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the AO with directions to verify tax payment on the balance amount for possible deletion of the addition.

Dismissal of Grounds by Ld. CIT(A):
The appellant's grounds regarding undisclosed receipts and non-consideration of facts were dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal reviewed the submissions made by the appellant, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the claimed adjustments. However, considering the appellant's assertions and the audited accounts, the Tribunal allowed the appeal partially, directing a re-examination by the AO based on the provided evidence.

Reopening of the Case:
The case was reopened for assessment under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. After statutory notices and replies from the assessee, the assessment order was passed, resulting in an addition. The appellant appealed to the Ld. CIT(A) against the order, which was subsequently challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal reviewed the entire case, addressing each ground raised by the appellant, ultimately partially allowing the appeal and remitting specific matters back to the AO for further examination.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of ex-parte decisions, additions of undisclosed receipts, dismissal of grounds by Ld. CIT(A), and the reopening of the case, providing detailed analysis and directions for further proceedings.