9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 1023 - AT - Income TaxAddition being the expenditure under the head consumption of stores and space - Admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT - We find that in the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, the ITAT had taken note of the evidence filed by the assessee and also that the AO has not verified such evidence. Therefore, ITAT thought it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the CIT(A) and directed him to call for a remand report from the AO on the evidence filed by the assessee. We find that in the remand proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee had filed an application for admission of additional evidence and also the additional evidence - CIT(A) had called for the comments of the AO only on the petition for admission for additional evidence and did not forward the additional evidence to the AO and therefore AO has submitted his remand report only on the petition for admission of the additional evidence. Thus, it is clear that the additional evidence has not been verified either by the AO or the CIT(A) and hence the directions of the ITAT have not been followed in its letter and spirit - we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and denovo consideration of the issue in accordance with law. - Revenue's appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues:
Revenue's appeal against CIT(A)'s order for A.Y 2007-08 - Assessing genuineness of expenditure claims - Addition of expenses and consumption of stores and space - Appeal before ITAT - Additional evidence submitted - CIT(A) granting partial relief - Dispute over remand report and verification of evidence - Directions of ITAT not followed - Assessment of depreciation on Goodwill values - Scope of CIT(A)'s powers - Consideration of Assessing Officer's request for rectification - Verification of evidence and remand to Assessing Officer. Analysis: 1. Assessing genuineness of expenditure claims: The case involved the Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2007-08 regarding the genuineness of expenditure claims. The Assessing Officer had made additions to the assessee's declared income due to unverified expenses and consumption of stores and space. The CIT(A) had granted partial relief, leading to appeals before the ITAT. 2. Additional evidence and remand report: Upon remand by the ITAT, the CIT(A) considered additional evidence submitted by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer did not verify this evidence, leading to a dispute over the proper verification process. The ITAT found that the directions regarding the remand report and verification were not followed by the CIT(A), prompting a decision to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and reconsideration. 3. Assessment of depreciation on Goodwill values: A key point of contention was the CIT(A)'s direction to allow depreciation on Goodwill values, which was not part of the original appeal remitted back by the ITAT. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) exceeded the scope of appeal by considering this issue. The ITAT highlighted the limited powers of the CIT(A) and the need to adhere to the subject matter of the appeal remitted by the ITAT. 4. Consideration of Assessing Officer's request for rectification: The CIT(A)'s decision to allow depreciation on Goodwill values raised questions about considering the Assessing Officer's request for rectification of apparent mistakes in the computation of income. The ITAT emphasized the need for the CIT(A) to stay within the bounds of the original assessment proceedings and not entertain new grounds of relief that were not part of the initial appeal. 5. Verification of evidence and remand to Assessing Officer: Ultimately, the ITAT found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee had not been adequately verified by either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). As a result, the ITAT decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and a fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with the law. The assessee was granted the opportunity to present their claims before the Assessing Officer for a lawful decision. In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment in this case focused on the proper verification of evidence, adherence to the directions of the ITAT, limitations on the CIT(A)'s powers, and the need to stay within the scope of the original appeal. The decision to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer for verification and reconsideration highlighted the importance of following due process and ensuring a fair assessment based on verified evidence.
|
