2022 (5) TMI 882 - AT - Income Tax

Addition us 68 - CIT-A deleted the addition - as argued CIT(A) has erred in not providing the opportunity to the Ld. AO to cross examine the additional information produced by the appellant as required by Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1961 - HELD THAT - CIT(A) in our opinion had decided the issue on the basis of the written submissions and the documents filed by the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal before the first appellate authority. Based on this, the Ld. CIT(A) had formed an opinion that there was some typographical errors in the balance sheet of M/s. Anisha Estate and Finance Private Limited and it was duly explained by the assessee in their written submissions. In our considered opinion, whenever a quasi-judicial authority is deciding the issue, the authority should provide an opportunity to the assessee as well the Ld. Assessing Officer should also be given an opportunity and call for a remand report or call for the comments of the Ld. AO. Considering the discrepancy shown by the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in not in accordance with the principles of natural justice by not granting an opportunity to the Assessing Officer for explaining whether there was any typographical error in the balance sheet of M/s. Anisha Estate and Finance Private Limited. In the light of the above, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication of the appeal in accordance with the principles of natural justice and after following the Rules framed by the Board in this regard for due adjudication of the Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for AY 2011-12 - Grounds of appeal raised by Revenue - Typographical error in balance sheet of M/s. Anisha Estate and Finance Private Limited - Opportunity to Assessing Officer - Principles of natural justice - Remand report - De novo adjudication.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2011-12, challenging various aspects. The main issues raised in the appeal included the direction to delete an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of additional information, and the absence of a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) had erred in not allowing the Assessing Officer to explain any typographical errors in the balance sheet of M/s. Anisha Estate and Finance Private Limited. The Revenue argued that if such errors existed, it was the responsibility of the party to rectify them and provide accurate information. They also emphasized the need for a remand report if the CIT(A) presumed a typographical mistake. On the other hand, the assessee's representative defended the CIT(A)'s order, stating that due process was followed, and there were no errors in the decision.

Upon reviewing the arguments from both sides and the available evidence, the ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had based the decision on written submissions and documents submitted by the assessee during the appeal hearing. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) concluded there were typographical errors in the balance sheet of M/s. Anisha Estate and Finance Private Limited, as explained by the assessee. However, the ITAT highlighted the importance of natural justice principles in such quasi-judicial proceedings. The ITAT opined that both the assessee and the Assessing Officer should have been given an opportunity to address the typographical errors and provide explanations. Therefore, the ITAT found the CIT(A)'s order lacking in adherence to natural justice principles by not allowing the Assessing Officer to clarify the discrepancies. Consequently, the ITAT decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to follow procedural rules for a fair hearing.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the assessee. The decision was pronounced in open court on 30th March 2022.