9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 42 - HC - Income TaxRejection of books of accounts - Enhancement of G.P. Ratio to 2% - Remanding the matter to AO for summoning and cross-examining Mr Garg - Re-adjudicating the matter afresh by ITAT - Held that - Remanding the matter to the AO for the purpose of examining the above firms once again, when all details are already available on record, would not serve any useful purpose. The end result is that the ITAT has not examined the issues raised before it on merits and instead remanded the matter to the AO which, in the opinion of the Court, would interminably delay the matter.For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is of the view that the matter ought to have been considered by the ITAT itself particularly when all the relevant details were available with the AO. Accordingly, the question framed by the Court is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
Issues:
1. Delay in re-filing of appeals. 2. Justification of ITAT's decision to remand the matter for cross-examination. 3. Adequacy of evidence and need for remand. Analysis: Issue 1: Delay in re-filing of appeals The Court allowed the delay in re-filing the appeals, subject to all just exceptions, as the reasons for the delay were considered and condoned. The applications related to the delay in re-filing were disposed of accordingly. Issue 2: Justification of ITAT's decision to remand the matter for cross-examination The Assessee appealed against the ITAT's order dated January 20, 2017, concerning assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06. The primary question of law framed was whether the ITAT was justified in remanding the matter to the AO for affording the Assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of Mr. Sanjay Kumar Garg and re-adjudicating the matter afresh. The Assessee contended that Mr. Garg did not specifically name the Assessee, and no documents were found during the survey of Mr. Garg's premises. The CIT (A) deleted the additions made by the AO, but the ITAT remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for cross-examination and examination of the genuineness of concerns from which the Assessee made purchases. Issue 3: Adequacy of evidence and need for remand The Court observed that the CIT (A) had already called for a remand report from the AO, where it was stated that Mr. Garg did not appear for cross-examination. The Court found that remanding the matter for summoning and cross-examining Mr. Garg would not serve any purpose. The Court noted that the Assessee had provided detailed material and documents during the assessment proceedings, including sales tax orders and payment details. The Court opined that remanding the matter to the AO for re-examining the concerns from which purchases were made, when all details were on record, would not be useful. Consequently, the Court set aside the ITAT's order and restored the appeals to the ITAT for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing that the ITAT should have considered the matter itself, given the availability of relevant details with the AO. This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of delay in re-filing appeals, the justification of the ITAT's decision for remand, and the adequacy of evidence leading to the Court's decision to set aside the ITAT's order.
|
